CHAGRINED CALIFORNIA DOJ GUN POLICE
RETURN IMPROPERLY CONFISCATED RIFLES
DOJ Firearms Division's Own Agents
Confused About What Constitutes An "Assault Weapon"
On November 25, 2003 the California DOJ announced the seizure of a number of
illegal "assault weapons" from a Laguna Niguel gun dealer. One of the guns
on display in the store was a Robinson Armament model M96 rifle. Believing
this rifle to be an illegal "assault weapon," DOJ Firearms Division agents
used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96
rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the
firearms under threat of criminal prosecution. One such raid was
videotaped. No compensation was offered for the seized firearms.
Only problem: the M96 rifle is perfectly legal and is not an "assault
weapon." Thankfully, higher ups at the DOJ Firearms Division got involved
at the urging of CRPA and others, and reversed the Agents' interpretation.
The confiscations illustrate the difficulty in determining whether a firearm
is an "assault weapon." Even the specialized DOJ Firearms Division's own
agents, with their advanced training on the subject, couldn't tell. So,
then how is the average gun owner supposed to know? The confusion inherent
in the statute lead the District Attorneys in Fresno and Mendocino counties
to file an unprecedented prosecutor vs. prosecutor lawsuit against the
Attorney General over the vagueness of the law when it first passed. Hunt
v. Lockyer (Fresno Superior Court #01 CE CG 03182) is still being litigated,
and challenges the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that
bans firearms based on their cosmetic features. The lawsuit points out that
the law does not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with
sufficient guidance to determine what features on a firearm are prohibited
so they cannot enforce the law fairly and unilaterally or determine how to
comply with it. A letter from District Attorney Hunt explaining the lawsuit
is available at the CRPA's website.
In seizing the M96 rifles, the DOJ Firearms Division agents mistakenly
believed that the model M96 was illegal because of one statutory definition
of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a conspicuously protruding
pistol grip. Although the M96 does not have a pistol grip, the agents
wrongfully believed that the "capacity to accept" provision applies to both
the detachable magazine and the pistol grip. The agents believed the M96
was an "assault weapon" because it has the "capacity to accept" a pistol
grip - as many guns do.
"We have been aware of the confusion since this law was passed in 1999,"
said CRPA spokesman Chuck Michel. "The practical effect of that confusion
is that the law has created a whole class of accidental felons in
California."
CRPA attempted to clear up the pistol grip issue last year when its
attorneys wrote DOJ for clarification. Luckily, DOJ's written responses
were available to prove the DOJ's Agents were wrong. Using those previous
DOJ responses, attorneys from both the CRPA and Robinson Armament were on
the phone with DOJ immediately after the raids started.
"We had to e-mail the DOJ copies of their own documents that detail
specifically why the M96 is not an 'assault weapon'" said Robinson Armament
attorney Jason Davis. "These kind of 'mistakes' by DOJ terrorize law
abiding customers and damage my client financially."
Approximately one week after seizing the model M96 rifles, DOJ's Agents
began returning the model M96 rifles to their owners.
RETURN IMPROPERLY CONFISCATED RIFLES
DOJ Firearms Division's Own Agents
Confused About What Constitutes An "Assault Weapon"
On November 25, 2003 the California DOJ announced the seizure of a number of
illegal "assault weapons" from a Laguna Niguel gun dealer. One of the guns
on display in the store was a Robinson Armament model M96 rifle. Believing
this rifle to be an illegal "assault weapon," DOJ Firearms Division agents
used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96
rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the
firearms under threat of criminal prosecution. One such raid was
videotaped. No compensation was offered for the seized firearms.
Only problem: the M96 rifle is perfectly legal and is not an "assault
weapon." Thankfully, higher ups at the DOJ Firearms Division got involved
at the urging of CRPA and others, and reversed the Agents' interpretation.
The confiscations illustrate the difficulty in determining whether a firearm
is an "assault weapon." Even the specialized DOJ Firearms Division's own
agents, with their advanced training on the subject, couldn't tell. So,
then how is the average gun owner supposed to know? The confusion inherent
in the statute lead the District Attorneys in Fresno and Mendocino counties
to file an unprecedented prosecutor vs. prosecutor lawsuit against the
Attorney General over the vagueness of the law when it first passed. Hunt
v. Lockyer (Fresno Superior Court #01 CE CG 03182) is still being litigated,
and challenges the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that
bans firearms based on their cosmetic features. The lawsuit points out that
the law does not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with
sufficient guidance to determine what features on a firearm are prohibited
so they cannot enforce the law fairly and unilaterally or determine how to
comply with it. A letter from District Attorney Hunt explaining the lawsuit
is available at the CRPA's website.
In seizing the M96 rifles, the DOJ Firearms Division agents mistakenly
believed that the model M96 was illegal because of one statutory definition
of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a conspicuously protruding
pistol grip. Although the M96 does not have a pistol grip, the agents
wrongfully believed that the "capacity to accept" provision applies to both
the detachable magazine and the pistol grip. The agents believed the M96
was an "assault weapon" because it has the "capacity to accept" a pistol
grip - as many guns do.
"We have been aware of the confusion since this law was passed in 1999,"
said CRPA spokesman Chuck Michel. "The practical effect of that confusion
is that the law has created a whole class of accidental felons in
California."
CRPA attempted to clear up the pistol grip issue last year when its
attorneys wrote DOJ for clarification. Luckily, DOJ's written responses
were available to prove the DOJ's Agents were wrong. Using those previous
DOJ responses, attorneys from both the CRPA and Robinson Armament were on
the phone with DOJ immediately after the raids started.
"We had to e-mail the DOJ copies of their own documents that detail
specifically why the M96 is not an 'assault weapon'" said Robinson Armament
attorney Jason Davis. "These kind of 'mistakes' by DOJ terrorize law
abiding customers and damage my client financially."
Approximately one week after seizing the model M96 rifles, DOJ's Agents
began returning the model M96 rifles to their owners.
