User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 9:13:34 AM EDT
I have a few lowers right now, i was thinking about getting a couple more in different brands.
although I am thinking do i really want to have more lowers that I just have to register? Will i have to register a simple stripped reciever? that seems rediculous 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 9:27:26 AM EDT
[#1]
That is what the DOJ is going for...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 9:32:12 AM EDT
[#2]
thats no fun, unless we can build them however we want... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 1:41:24 PM EDT
[#3]
So how many police are going to know the difference between a type 1, type 2, type 3, type 4 ... assault weapon when they have trouble identifying an Uzi from a MAC-10? I suppose they'll issue out little wallet cards for the police and the gun owners.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 1:44:07 PM EDT
[#4]
more importantly when will they ever see your guns and why would they care? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 2:05:13 PM EDT
[#5]
There are a lot of LEOs who are buying these for themselves, I would bet for the most part (though I don't want to test it) that they will care more about what kinda setup you have to compare to theirs than they will care about how you have it configured.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 2:27:21 PM EDT
[#6]
For the time being please don't let the DOJ memo released Fri 2/3/06 (and corrected a few days later) worry you.
The actions specified are unfounded and not supported by any law. I have written a 16+page rebuttal memo and am working with an attorney on this. These things are solved by injunctions. This should not affect your wanting to buy a lower. Get it now and store it away and let other folks do the fighting. Check in here or on Calguns.net for updates to status on this fight.. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 4:25:19 PM EDT
[#7]
They wont. If the off chance a cop come across your AR in the course of his duties he is going to run the SN and if it's registerted to you, it has an OAL of at least 26" and a Brl at least 16" long and leawfully transported he isnt likely to investigate further. The average cop isnt going to see a doublestar and know that its supposed to have a fixed mag or no PG even when registered as an AW. Some people here have a pretty clear understanding of the way people get into trouble for "AW's." The rest of the war gamming of various scenarios is just mental masturbation and tin foil hattery. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 5:07:46 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 6:31:19 PM EDT
[#9]
A significant amount of Law Enforcement Officers purchased off-list lowers. There were even LEO group buys that took place in some areas and most LEOs have purchased more of them than non-LEOs. In fact, one FFL told me that agents who worked for the DOJ had purchased lowers from him. The memo is just that... a memo. The current AG has a history of pulling this crap and we'll have to send this to courts where he'll get smacked down again. Bill has already ripped this memo to pieces and he's not an attorney (but he SHOULD be... I bet he could pass the bar :D). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 10:03:13 AM EDT
[#10]
That's good to know. Ideally we want officers in PDs and Sheriff's Depts and DA investigators offices in all 58 counties to buy them :)
That would not surprise me - but that could just be to cause some newly-discovered brands to "enter commerce" - although apparently the DOJ has its own FFL so that might be moot.
Prob will revolve around getting a preliminary injunction when a reg period opens. We don't want folks signing conditional registrations.
Thanks for the kind words, but naaaah. I have some basic general knowledge and a detailed knowledge of CA AW law and some pretty good reading/analytical skills. That's it. My rebuttal on Calguns covers the broad strokes but I've just finished a 16page far more detailed rebuttal memo. This is gonna stay private. It's already in a capable attorney's hands where it will, when necessary, be properly reshaped and expounded upon. The memo could be just a DOJ trial balloon too. Bill Wiese San Jose |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 10:41:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Yes, if the DOJ puts it on the 12276.5 list. The "once it's registered can I build it up with PC 12276.1 features?" question is a separate question, and the DOJ's position (and by this I mean the position that you may not build your newly registered AR series lower with PC 12276.1 features, not the language in the memo about invalidating registrations if you do) can fairly easily be supported by the current text of the AW legislation, in my opinion, and although I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk, I think it will be an uphill struggle to beat them. This isn't the way I want it to be, and the "register then build up with SB 23 features" seemed like a good strategy to me before, but this is my current thinking FWIW. Don't believe me or anybody else on the internet about this, though; hire your own attorney to get an opinion on this if you want one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:15:30 PM EDT
[#12]
I already had my attorney take a look at it. Without new legislation that interpretation isn't there in the law. However, it was rather naive of us to not assume the DOJ would go down without a fight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:31:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Ask your attorney if he's willing to give you an unqualified written opinion stating that the DOJ's interpretation (i.e., that you may not possess an AW with 12276.1 features built out of a newly-listed AR Series receiver) just "isn't there in the law." Or that it would be perfectly legal to go ahead and configure your newly listed and registered AR Series receiver with detachable mag, pistol grip, etc. My guess is that you would get at least a few qualifications, like the risk that you may be prosecuted for doing so and that a trial court and/or appellate court will interpret the AW legislation in the same or similar manner that the DOJ is interpreting it.
I think if you gave this as a research assignment to a class of first year law students they would find the DOJ's interpretation without too much of a problem along with the language in the legislation supporting the argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 4:38:50 PM EDT
[#14]
I have submitted my rebuttal memo (a vastly extended version of what I posted on Calguns) to a good firearms attorney who works for a firm headed by a noted gun attorney ;)
In conversation with him today, he agrees with my assesment that the DOJ cannot do what it proposes to do in the memo, it doesn't have regulatory authority to implement a restricted registration, and that once declared/reg'd as an AW, there are no restrictions on configuration. He's doing his own rebutttal to this memo, and we've touched on many of the same points. He says it does remain to be seen if DOJ will hold a false position and we have to smite them with an injuction when a reg period opens, or if they will see the light: he is in contact with them. Bill Wiese San Jose, CA |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 4:56:31 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 5:24:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Remember, one of the key assertions in this memo was that the DOJ was going to enforce the configuration stuff thru "registration management".
That is, you weren't in violation of PC 12280(a) (illegal manufacturing, creation, etc.) by adding features to an AW, but by doing this you voided the registration and only then were in violation of 12280(b) (possession of unreg'd AW). In other words, they couldn't find a direct criminal violation so they have to synthesize one! :) The attorneys are laughing on this one :) - aside from the issue that an "AW is an AW is an AW" once registered. Bill Wiese San Jose |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 8:22:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Bill -
The AG appears to be able to freely issue memos and letters that obviously misrepresent the law and his authority to regulate firearms. His intent is clearly to intimidate law abiding business owners (FFL's) and regular citizens into conforming to his anti second amendment agenda. There's no reason to believe he isn't doing the same thing in other areas as well. As far as we know the Governor and legislators don't care to rein him in. Is there some other broader approach the rest of us can take in addition to what you are doing with the off-list receivers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 11:06:49 PM EDT
[#18]
That's what courts are for. And judges don't like executive branch/other elected officials crossing into legislative realm. So when DOJ Firearms Div issues wild regulations, you have to call 'em on it. This applies to other spheres as well. It's a matter of having standing, though. You can't just sue over laws you don't like. Bill Wiese San Jose |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:31:55 AM EDT
[#19]
bweise, have you signed a retainer agreement with this gun attorney and requested a written opinion evaluating the risks of criminal prosecution for building up a newly listed and registered AR Series receiver with SB 23 characteristics? It's one thing to have a phone conversation with a pro-gun attorney who says he agrees with your rebuttal and is going to seek a TRO/preliminary injunction in a civil matter when the registration period opens, there's really no downside for the attorney to do that especially if you are not his client and especially if you're not going to be building up your new SB 23 rifle while the action is pending. It's another thing entirely to give a client specific advice concerning potential criminal liability where there would be a consequence to the attorney for giving bad advice or not addressing the risks. In that context I suspect you would receive a more balanced assessment of the DOJ's position.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:44:18 AM EDT
[#20]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 9:36:53 AM EDT
[#21]
No one is saying that one should drop the mag on declaration and receiving registration.
We are just saying this is eminently challengeable on multiple fronts and it is and will be challenged - first informally, "Hey guys, you gotta be kidding - here's what we're gonna do if you go thru with this" then formally, seeking injunctive relief. In addition, the exact wording of the memo would make it appear that one has to dismantle the rifle, as it confuses features listed 12276.1 with 12276.1 features used in combination w/semiauto rifle w/detachable magazine. As of now, this is just a memo, and a mere statement of possible intent, a "trial balloon". It could well be created just in an attempt to thwart people from buying more lowers. I think 8000+ Stoner-style lowers have made it into CA now. You should not let this memo dissuade you from buying off-list lowers, either: the upside is just too great. Bill Wiese San Jose |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 2:27:50 PM EDT
[#22]
BILL like what the Rogue Warrior - Richard Marcinko told me at the Shot Show this year. KICK ASS! 
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
