Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/3/2006 10:45:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 10:55:05 AM EDT by gotodengo]
fuck me

From calguns

IMPORTANT NOTICE
California Department of Justice



The Department of Justice (hereafter the Department@) has received numerous contacts from the public and firearms industry personnel regarding the legality of various AR-15/AK 47 "series" style firearms that have not yet been identified as Aseries@ assault weapons by the Department. The Department is also aware of the recent high volume of sales of these firearms.
The Department has the statutory authority to identify Aseries@ assault weapons. In 2000, the California Supreme Court upheld that authority in Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 472. The Department updated the list of "series" weapons in 2000 (as ACategory 2@ assault weapons), shortly after the Kasler decision. The registration period for Category 2 weapons ended on December 31, 2000.
The California Supreme Court reiterated in 2003 that Athe Attorney General has the authority to determine that certain semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons by simply identifying them as such in the list published by the Attorney General in the California Code of RegulationsYtwo types of firearms defined in section 12276 by the use of the term series, namely the AK-47 series and the Colt AR-15 series.@ Harrott v. County of Kings (2003) 25 Cal. 4th 1138, 1155.
Accordingly, the Department is currently in the process of identifying those firearms in the state which are variations, with minor differences, of AR-15/AK 47 "series" weapons. Once this process is complete, the Department will promulgate a list and file it with the Secretary of State=s office. Concurrently, the Department will begin updating the Assault Weapon Identification Guide which is currently available via the Department=s web-site at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/index.html. Once the list of newly identified Aseries@ weapons is filed with the Secretary of State, citizens who possess those weapons will have 90 days to register them with the Department of Justice.

Newly identified Aseries@ weapons cannot legally have the features listed in Penal Code 12276.1 when they are registered. Those features cannot legally be added after the firearms are registered as assault weapons. The Penal Code 12276.1 features have been banned since January 1, 2000, when SB 23 went into effect. The public was notified of the prohibition on the specified features many years ago.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Page Two

The registration period for assault weapons with those characteristics (Category 3 assault weapons) ended on December 31, 2000. Because non-"series" assault weapons with 12276.1 features may not be offered for sale, manufactured, imported, or possessed in California, it follows that newly registered "series" weapons may not have the features listed in Penal Code 12276.1, either.
The prohibition on the features listed in Penal Code section 12276.1 is consistent with current DOJ policy that named Aseries@ weapons are illegal, unless registered, regardless of whether they have the 12276.1 features. It is also consistent with the intent of the California state legislature to ban assault weapons, expressed in 1991 when Penal Code 12276(f) was enacted.
This section is declaratory of existing law, as amended, and a clarification of the law and the Legislature=s intent which bans the weapons enumerated in this section, the weapons included in Section 12276.5, and any other models which are only minor variations of those weapons with minor differences, regardless of the manufacturer [emphasis added].
It should be noted that individuals who timely registered ACategory 1@ and ACategory 2@ assault weapons were allowed to keep or add the 12276.1 features on their firearms. Those generic features were not illegal during the registration period for Category 1 assault weapons. In August of 2000, when the Department identified the Category 2 Aseries@ weapons, it was legal to register weapons with those characteristics as Category 3 assault weapons. Firearms with those features could no longer be registered as of January 1, 2001. Therefore, newly identified Aseries@ (Category 4) weapons likewise cannot have those features.

Registrants of newly identified series weapons cannot legally add Penal Code section 12276.1 features to those firearms. The Department intends to enforce this restriction through the assault weapon registration process. Registration acknowledgment letters will include an admonition to registrants that adding prohibited features to newly registered assault weapons will invalidate registration. The basis for valid registration will rest solely on the fact that the Department identifies the receivers for these firearms as variations, with minor differences, of already controlled AR-15/AK 47 Aseries@ weapons. All additional features of the newly identified "series" weapons must conform with current California law.

Firearm manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers who misinform the public about the ability to legally add prohibited features to these newly listed firearms risk criminal prosecution. They could also face civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation under the state=s Unfair Practices Act (California Business & Professions Code section 17000 et seq.).

This information will be distributed to criminal justice agencies throughout the state, as well as to firearm dealers listed on the Department's Centralized List, via the formal Information Bulletin process.



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the
use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use
or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:03:07 AM EDT
I don't buy it. Don't give up yet. It's a scare tactic. They are running scared because they are incompetent and do not know quite how to shut us down. The courts will rule properly.

I hope.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:08:37 AM EDT
FUCK!!! That is all I have to offer.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:09:49 AM EDT
im hoping, but dont forget we have the wonderfull 9th circut
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:22:13 AM EDT
anyone want to buy a stag for $50?

<­BR>






Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:24:19 AM EDT
We all knew this was one of the options for DOJ. Allow registration but prohibit manufacturing the stripped lowers into comple AW's.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:32:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
We all knew this was one of the options for DOJ. Allow registration but prohibit manufacturing the stripped lowers into comple AW's.


I think this kind of shows the DOJ can do whatever the hell it wants, regardless of law. I guess we'll have to see how this works out in court. There may be a whole bunch of pistol gripless ARs and AKs around soon.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:02:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 12:06:09 PM EDT by Mesa_Tactical]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
We all knew this was one of the options for DOJ. Allow registration but prohibit manufacturing the stripped lowers into comple AW's.



Indeed. Several knowledgeable-sounding folks posted almost these exact words:


The Penal Code 12276.1 features have been banned since January 1, 2000, when SB 23 went into effect. The public was notified of the prohibition on the specified features many years ago.


Of course, they were shouted down in the forums. What always disturbed me about the discussions regarding the DoJ's room for maneuver was how it was always declared that the DoJ will do this, and must do that and will not do this. It's always dangerous to use absolutes like that when discussing something as slippery as the law (if the law was always so clear-cut and simple we wouldn't need $400 per hour lawyers to tell us what it means).

This was always going to be a gamble. Which is why I only bought two lowers.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:02:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:05:33 PM EDT
It's official now, check the DoJ site.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:11:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
It's official now, check the DoJ site.



Where'd you see it? I looked and couldnt find anything...
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:17:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By str8t1:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
It's official now, check the DoJ site.



Where'd you see it? I looked and couldnt find anything...


Top right corner
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:20:51 PM EDT
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ar15notice.pdf
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:22:55 PM EDT
The battle is not over yet. It has just begun.

This memo is actually poorly crafted. It's held out lotsa things that just can't happen.
I even wonder if it's been vetted by a lawyer.

I've written a rebuttal on Calguns.net.

There are quite a few incorrect things on it - esp a key area in Jan 2001 where SB23 reg period stopped on 12/31/00 but Kasler reg period continued to 1/22/01.

Bill Wiese
San Jose
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:24:59 PM EDT
I hope you are right bill.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:31:18 PM EDT
We were hoping for happy ending, but instead got a legal chess game.

At least we have a fighting chance.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:38:32 PM EDT
This one kills me

"A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel".

"without burning his or her hand"
It's o.k as long as you suffer for it and get 2nd and 3rd degree burns( Serves you right)


Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:42:21 PM EDT
These motherfuckers seriously have issues, making this shit up as they go along is tyrannical bullshit as my ass shitting fucking railroad spikes. Sorry I'm going to cry now. Cocksucking fucks
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:54:08 PM EDT
I could have written that notice better than the DOJ did!
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:58:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NavyGunner:
This one kills me

"A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel".

"without burning his or her hand"
It's o.k as long as you suffer for it and get 2nd and 3rd degree burns( Serves you right)




Yeah that is one of the more ridiculous rules. I bet it was put on there specifically for the ultra evil Tec9.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 1:13:52 PM EDT
So what exactly does it mean? You have to stick with the 10 round mag? Or you can't build the lower at all? Confused??
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 1:35:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 1:43:38 PM EDT by M4-guy]

Originally Posted By Cdog:
So what exactly does it mean? You have to stick with the 10 round mag? Or you can't build the lower at all? Confused??



To summarize, they are saying that
1. Once the list is updated, if your lower is included, it must be registered as an AW. We expected this.
2. Newly listed lowers must comply with SB23, i.e., they must have a fixed 10-rd mag OR no pistol grip*.


Time to lawyer up.

ETA:

* or any other evil features:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 1:38:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cdog:
So what exactly does it mean?



Pretty simple. It means you either assemble the lower as a FABforgery. Dont assemble it at all. Or make it some other type of SB23 compliant firearm like a dedicated rimfire, or straight pull bolt action.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 1:43:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 1:43:59 PM EDT by Spahn_Ranch]

Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:
I could have written that notice better than the DOJ did!hr


Me, or my associate Miles_Quade href=glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479351&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1

You know, it's only going to get worse from here, not better. Some of those folks over at Calguns are in denial, unwilling to even admit there's another side to the argument, or that when all is said and done the DOJ's interpretation might even be correct! Sure you can nit-pick certain aspects of their information bulletin, which someone probably cobbled together quickly just to put everyone on notice, but the gist of it is really simple (as Mesa Tactical pointed out in the Calguns thread): SB 23 assault weapons have been banned since 1/1/00.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 1:51:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:

Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:
I could have written that notice better than the DOJ did!



Me, or my associate Miles_Quade over at Glocktalk:

glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479351&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1

You know, it's only going to get worse from here, not better. Some of those folks over at Calguns are in denial, unwilling to even admit there's another side to the argument, or that when all is said and done the DOJ's interpretation might even be correct! Sure you can nit-pick certain aspects of their information bulletin, which someone probably cobbled together quickly just to put everyone on notice, but the gist of it is really simple (as Mesa Tactical pointed out in the Calguns thread): SB 23 assault weapons have been banned since 1/1/00.




Sure SB23 features have been illegal since 2000. But if you build the rifle SB23 compliant, why does it need to be registered?

If it is registered as an AW, then feature count becomes moot.

There are no "levels" of evilness. The Category 1,2,3 thing was to clarify the definition of an AW to joe public.

It's either an AW, or it isn't. You can't be "sort of pregnant"
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 1:56:25 PM EDT
Yet soldier's that registered their "assault weapons" well after the registration period was over can have any and all the features..
Tell me how that works
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 2:18:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 2:30:53 PM EDT by mef223]
Many people, myself included, thought this might be a possiblility. The scary part is the paragraph regarding enforcement via registration:

DOJ agent: Hello there, nice rifle, may I see your reg paperwork?
Target Shooter: Sure, here it is (hands photocopy over).
DOJ Agent: I see that you registered it properly...wait, it that mag detachable?
Target Shooter: Yeah, see, um, this is a CMP match.
DOJ Agent: Too bad, registration revoked on site...ILLEGAL POSSESSION - GET IN THE CAR!

This would provide a situation where LEOs could determine, and revoke(?) AW registrations at will. I see this as a problem, and I am an LEO. We will never defeat the "list," not in this state. We will never revoke the AW laws in general, not in this state. If the DOJ's policy has a weak point, it is the "enforcement through registration" section. I predict our registration cards are going to have a section stating something to the effect of if we add the features, we knowingly will be in violation of the registration, and thus the law, and you know that, you evil bastard, and that proper and legal registration can not be completed unless you sign here:______________. That would be good enough for most of the judges I know, trust me. I hope I'm wrong, I don't want to sign any such acknowlegdement.

Judge: Defendant is charged with possession of an assault rifle.
Target Shooter: Of course it's an assault rifle, the DOJ and I agreed that it was (showing reg.).
My lawyerhe
I wish the DOJ could realize that the majority of people, like all of us on the forums, do what we can to enjoy our sport while remaining in compliance with the law.

Interesting factoid: Many CA LEO's compete in "police olympics" type rifle matches in other states.

I personally can live with my safe babies having a crown nut on the mag catches, at least until I get to AZ or NV.

I predict a burning-man-style freedom shoot in AZ, twice a year. But without the dope.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 2:36:54 PM EDT
Maybe ramming the Constitution down their liberal throats and remind
them that the Constitution governs this land, if they don’t like it leave.

Remind those who took the oath to “DEFEND AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC” should be held accountable for breaking that oath and impeached and sent to Leavenworth and maybe even held for treason.

Any lawyers out there !!!! (This will get you on TV)

Sometimes when the war goes badly you need to fall back to a stronger more fortified position and
gather your forces into one or more places ( i.e. retreat to another state ) and protect and hold the lines until you can retake the ground you lost.

I know, I know, shut my piehole and send the receivers.
"Fire for Effect"
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 3:00:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 3:00:56 PM EDT by BigBang]
If this is all that happened today why was the DOJ telling manufactures not to send in anymore lowers as Leelaw pointed out in his thread??
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 3:10:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BigBang:
If this is all that happened today why was the DOJ telling manufactures not to send in anymore lowers as Leelaw pointed out in his thread??



hted.....
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 3:13:30 PM EDT
Basicly as long as I build my rifles with a locked 10 round mag they are fine in CA. I can still have my pistol grip correct? I guess it's better than nothing. Pretty much what was to be expected by CA's libatard govt.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 3:31:22 PM EDT
The problem I see is this. The memo is attempting to mix two things, the AR/AK list AND the SB23.

Why would SB-23 compliant firearms NEED to be registered? the letters from the DOJ acknowledged that STAG-15 lowers were not on the Kasler list and can be imported and constructed ONLY TO SB-23 requirements.

Soooo..... why register if we are already compliant?

Harrot was designed to address AR/AK lowers with stipulation, that the CA DOJ from time to time will add to the list and open registration.

The SB-23 was designed to catch everything non AR/AK, such as FALs, M1A's, PTR91's etc.

I must have missed the section that AR/AK listed firearms must also conform to SB-23, Why, because I don't think it exists...

And if you follow that logic, am I now forced to register vulcans, Fab10's and calibushmasters? They weren't listed but are Sb-23 compliant. WHAT"S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FIXED MAG STAG AND ONE OF THOSE FIREARMS? A FELONY IF NOT REGISTERED? IT makes no sense whatsoever.

I think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg here....



Link Posted: 2/3/2006 3:46:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 3:50:03 PM EDT by leelaw]

Originally Posted By NavyGunner:

Originally Posted By BigBang:
If this is all that happened today why was the DOJ telling manufactures not to send in anymore lowers as Leelaw pointed out in his thread??



I'm an 07 and I didn't get any letters..... Gee I feel slighted.....



Because...


...She has said that all dealers will be NOTIFIED when the ban is in place and the list is updated, which was estimated at "three to four weeks out" however it could come sooner....


Today is just the memo, nothing has been banned yet.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:00:47 PM EDT
Like I said, it seems to be a scare tactic. To spread fear and uncertainty. To effectively shut down or slow sales to the public. It absolutely reeks of desperation on their part. They screwed the pooch years ago on this issue, we finally took advantage of the obvious loophole that THEY left open.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:05:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Like I said, it seems to be a scare tactic. To spread fear and uncertainty. To effectively shut down or slow sales to the public. It absolutely reeks of desperation on their part. They screwed the pooch years ago on this issue, we finally took advantage of the obvious loophole f*ck up by the legislature that THEY left open.



fixed it
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:48:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mef223:
Many people, myself included, thought this might be a possiblility. The scary part is the paragraph regarding enforcement via registration:

DOJ agent: Hello there, nice rifle, may I see your reg paperwork?
Target Shooter: Sure, here it is (hands photocopy over).
DOJ Agent: I see that you registered it properly...wait, it that mag detachable?
Target Shooter: Yeah, see, um, this is a CMP match.
DOJ Agent: Too bad, registration revoked on site...ILLEGAL POSSESSION - GET IN THE CAR!

This would provide a situation where LEOs could determine, and revoke(?) AW registrations at will. I see this as a problem, and I am an LEO. We will never defeat the "list," not in this state. We will never revoke the AW laws in general, not in this state. If the DOJ's policy has a weak point, it is the "enforcement through registration" section. I predict our registration cards are going to have a section stating something to the effect of if we add the features, we knowingly will be in violation of the registration, and thus the law, and you know that, you evil bastard, and that proper and legal registration can not be completed unless you sign here:______________. That would be good enough for most of the judges I know, trust me. I hope I'm wrong, I don't want to sign any such acknowlegdement.

Judge: Defendant is charged with possession of an assault rifle.
Target Shooter: Of course it's an assault rifle, the DOJ and I agreed that it was (showing reg.).
My lawyer: You better just take the deal...can you give me $10,000?

I wish the DOJ could realize that the majority of people, like all of us on the forums, do what we can to enjoy our sport while remaining in compliance with the law.

Interesting factoid: Many CA LEO's compete in "police olympics" type rifle matches in other states.

I personally can live with my safe babies having a crown nut on the mag catches, at least until I get to AZ or NV.

I predict a burning-man-style freedom shoot in AZ, twice a year. But without the dope.



I have this odd feeling that when you sign the paperwork never to add evil features, it can never be modified in any state you take it to. This is similar to a CA resident attempting to purchase a rifle in NV without an FFL, legal in NV but not for CA.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:52:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 9:08:43 PM EDT by mef223]
Not likely. Once you are in AZ (for example), AZ laws apply, not CA. Transport your legally neutered rifle to another state, "fix it," shoot to your heart's delight. Now you have to "neuter" it again before coming back into California. Unless AZ passes laws pretaining to CA travelling shooters (not likely), or a new federal AW law in enacted (slightly more likely), you're golden in free states.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:01:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 9:07:53 PM EDT by mef223]
CA DOJ has no jurisdiction outside of CA.

Actually, I thought it would turn out like this. Remember Clinton? The federal AW ban was enacted under his administration. Don't think the tides won't turn again. A change in administration could mean another Fed AW ban. One of the reasons I bought my lowers is so they will be "pre-" any future fed ban.

I know several people that have residency in two states. Suppose you're fortunate enough to own a 2nd home in AZ, lets say at the river. Get a AZ ID card only, and maintain your CA driver's license. Buy and play with what you want - AK's, AR's, etc... Just don't bring them back into CA.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:26:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skammy:
Yet soldier's that registered their "assault weapons" well after the registration period was over can have any and all the features..
Tell me how that works



There were certain exceptions in the original laws, one of which is that military personnel entering the state under orders could apply for registration and that registration could be granted for the length of time the person is on duty nin the state. IIRC, once they leave the service that registration is no longer available and they need to dispose of them iaw the law.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:13:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mef223:
I predict a burning-man-style freedom shoot in AZ, twice a year. But without the dope.



"Shooting man." Let's make it happen.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:22:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bwiese:
The battle is not over yet. It has just begun.

This memo is actually poorly crafted. It's held out lotsa things that just can't happen.
I even wonder if it's been vetted by a lawyer.

I've written a rebuttal on Calguns.net.

There are quite a few incorrect things on it - esp a key area in Jan 2001 where SB23 reg period stopped on 12/31/00 but Kasler reg period continued to 1/22/01.

Bill Wiese
San Jose



If they keep repeating the lie, it'll become the truth.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 6:59:27 AM EDT
I dont think DOJ can overcome the fundimental flaw in SB 23, which is that it was created to limit weapons which were not legaly defined AW's.

Basically the law says "you cant have and unregistered AW". There's no codification of different kinds of AW's. (The category 1,2,3, thing is purely a construct the DOJ put together for talking about which law an AW was created under. They admit as much in the AW guide.) You can talk about the path a weapon took to become a registered AW but once its registered they're all in the same pool.

There's nothing in the law that limites the features you may add or remove based on the path you took to registration. There's a section that provides limites for transfer, repair, transport, where to shoot etc, but it doesnt say anything about what modifications are lawful or unlawful.

Link Posted: 2/4/2006 7:06:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wulfenite:

...There's no codification of different kinds of AW's. (The category 1,2,3, thing is purely a construct the DOJ put together for talking about which law an AW was created under. They admit as much in the AW guide.) You can talk about the path a weapon took to become a registered AW but once its registered they're all in the same pool.

There's nothing in the law that limites the features you may add or remove based on the path you took to registration. There's a section that provides limites for transfer, repair, transport, where to shoot etc, but it doesnt say anything about what modifications are lawful or unlawful.



That's how I see it too. The power of the DoJ to "regulate" has come to mean they can make up the law as they go.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:46:40 AM EDT
Amazing when the AW ban in CA happened in 2000 (SB-23) everything was cut and dry... NOW it is such the clusterfuck.. this changes and that changes if this condition exists blah blah blah!!!

There was one guy that was trying to get SB23 thrown out by petitions and we ALMOST had all the signatures needed then BAM! he was told "Sorry charlie... those petitions are no good... have to re-do them" and we never made the deadline with all the new petitions.

Sure as hell wish we had some major Pro gun attorneys ready to go to battle for this.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 11:11:16 AM EDT
It will happen. Things are kicking into gear.

I won't be present too much here because I will be buried in depths of PC 12275-12290 and writting rebuttal details to memo.

I'm hoping to do initial legwork that a real lawyer can attack the DOJ memo on multiple fronts.

Right now the memo is FUD

Relax, the fight's just begun.


Bill Wiese
San Jose
Top Top