California gov't seizes 500 legal ARs

[Adventurer_96]

It isn't like the NRA has just abandoned California. They have been fighting in California for years, and getting their teeth kicked in for years as well.

I think gun owners in California have every right not to support the NRA if it isn't performing for them; but I really don't look at the NRA as a state-level organization. Here in Texas, I support TSRA to protect my rights at the state capitol and send money to the NRA to protect my rights at the national level.

I think that regardless of whether the NRA is or is not helping, California first has to strengthen its grassroots state-level groups. In California, you aren't just fighting a legislative battle, you are fighting a cultural battle against people who want to remove firearms from the culture entirely. Educating your neighbors and friends on guns is the only way Californians are going to change this trend.

This is quite possibly one of the best posts I've read in the last year regarding CA for two reasons. One, I think you really made an important distinction regarding state-level organizations. True, the NRA can have an impact, but I think that state organizations have a lot more influence w/state lawmakers.

Two, you hit the nail on the head regarding the overall issue in CA - it's a grassroots, cultural battle. When the perception is that owning a firearm makes you a criminal or a survivalist nutjob, that perception needs to change before you can get meaningful change. Having said that, can you blame people who are inundated w/images of gun violence for projecting their anger onto the easiest target, namely guns?

 

[No_Brakes23]

I think that regardless of whether the NRA is or is not helping, California first has to strengthen its grassroots state-level groups. In California, you aren't just fighting a legislative battle, you are fighting a cultural battle against people who want to remove firearms from the culture entirely. Educating your neighbors and friends on guns is the only way Californians are going to change this trend.

Absolutely.

When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide. The site is also helpfull in keeping people up on current events.

Oh I can think of a pretty good reason to be discrete about it. How about the fact that Fulton ARmory was very willing to work with Californians until DoJ got wind of what we were planning and then started threatening F-A with close to 60 lawsuits? F-A backed out and went so far as to inply that any lowers that made it to Cali were "stolen" or "illegal."

Simply put, when the .gov doesn't care about justice or even following its own laws, then honest men have reason to hide even their legal actions.

 

[antarti]

When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide.

500 gun-owners in Cali lose something, we all lose something.

Just because you're not laying on the table today, doesn't mean you're not on the menu.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Thank you, Antari. If something works in California, it makes antis in other states more bold. What we have here is the government taking 500 guns on one justification, and then once the justification is no longer valid, simply holding onto the guns as they attempt to find another reason to take them. In this case, it is more than just cultural attitudes, it is the governent going out of its way, and bending or breaking its own law to harass gun owners.

Ben Cannon, the person who organized the group buy, has retained a San Francisco law firm with experience in firearms matters to deal with this. I'll post here when anything happens.

 

[Sven]

CAL DOJ currently has 6 (six) of my AR receivers.







/vertigo

 

[lawdogso]

CAL DOJ currently has 6 (six) of my AR receivers.







/vertigo

Count them gone!!! Having worked LE in this state you won't see them again sorry to say. That sucks!
Lawdogso

 

[Sven]

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[pcf]

CAL DOJ currently has 6 (six) of my AR receivers.

Why don't you try to put a lien on the FFL's business? And then file against him in small claims court. The FFL willingly, knowledgably, and intentionally broke the law and jeopardized your property.

Maybe a moment of decency will smack him in the face- he'll take responsibility for his actions, and refund your money- when he realizes that his actions could cost him his home.

Thank you, Antari. If something works in California, it makes antis in other states more bold. What we have here is the government taking 500 guns on one justification, and then once the justification is no longer valid, simply holding onto the guns as they attempt to find another reason to take them. In this case, it is more than just cultural attitudes, it is the governent going out of its way, and bending or breaking its own law to harass gun owners.

I looked, not well, but couldn't find anything in CA code/law that states that firearms must be returned after 24 hours for storage infractions. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

[Phoenix_III]

Count them gone!!! Having worked LE in this state you won't see them again sorry to say. That sucks!
Lawdogso

So where did they go? If you know he won't see them again, then you know why/where they went.

 

[billwiese]

Why don't you try to put a lien on the FFL's business? And then file against him in small claims court. The FFL willingly, knowledgably, and intentionally broke the law and jeopardized your property.

Personal attack edited. Check your PMs - BR

You're also from outside California so why're your commenting here about this situation, I dunno - esp as you apparently have ZERO idea about the background of getting off-list lower receivers into CA, and that this is the 1st chance we've had (or ever will have, likely) to possibly have new assault weapons in CA.

This guy is a stand-up FFL - and I don't know him except by reputation and from others that know him and are involved in this. At a time when few CA FFL dealers stepped up to the plate to deal in off-list AR lowers because of California DOJ intimidation, misunderstanding of the AW laws due to lack of knowledge or basic reading skills, etc. this guy was one of the two dozen or so in CA that stepped up to the plate and refused to buckle under to the DOJ - and for a relatively low-margin item, too.

And you wanna penalize this behavior?

Everyone buying these lowers knew there would be elevated scrutiny. Frankly, it wouldn't've surprised me if DOJ had just started seizing lowers "just because". It's an election year, and DOJ's boss (the AG) is running for a new post.

The issues were a ticky-tacky DOJ pretense to try to stop 100 (?) lowers from getting into circulation. I'd bet there's 20% of gun dealers that are not in exact compliance with the minutiae of detailed storage issues - cubic feet rations, etc. The FFL alleviated the situation immediately - he got a new huge safe THE SAME DAY.

One of the reasons this situation presented itself may have been due to delayed shipment receipt and some people waiting to pick up - so all of a sudden an extra box of lowers is there that may well not have if schedules didn't bunch up. This was a crisis time and everyone was/is ordering things shipped overnight since we don't know when the DOJ hammer will fall and most new brands of lowers "get listed".

Without going into further detail, I think this situation will be resolved. The FFL issues appear to be OK now, and the concerns over the group-buy organzier should fall by the wayside soon (he's not making a profit, he was just financing the bulk purchase for favorable discount).



Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[bg]

So where did they go? If you know he won't see them again, then you know why/where they went.

If they don't release the lowers. they'll end up at the Tamco plant in
Fontana to make new rebar..> This article is dated, but Tamco still
does this. I used to work right off of Etiwanda & San Berdoo Ave.
When the cops come with these loads, they'll shut off part of the street
until the trailers are at Tamco and then they have a small army there
so no one can get to the weapons. They watch closely as they are melted
down..
http://www.theacorn.com/News/2001/0802/Community/009.html

California law mandates the destruction of seized weapons during July each year.

TAMCO Steel, Inc., runs the only remaining steel mill in California.

This is the eighth year the firm donated the services of its personnel and equipment to melt, cast and convert the weapons into construction material.

Over the years, TAMCO has processed more than 630,000 pounds of confiscated firearms from law enforcement agencies.

 

[pcf]

Bill,

Good guy or not, the FFL willingly broke the law. CA DOJ is a draconian organization, but California storage requirements are clearly stated. There's no confusion on the subject. If there was increased scrutiny placed on FFLs transferring off brand lowers, more than ever the FFL should have been in compliance with the law.

Fact, the FFL did not have the means to adequately store firearms. Fact, the FFL had the financial means to provide adequate storage. Fact, the FFL did not to aquire adequate storage. Fact, his actions led to 500+ lower receivers being confiscated.

Being good guy and standing up against the man are not excuses for bad business practices or breaking the law. The FFL created the circumstances that led to the receivers being confiscated by CA DOJ, not the other away around.

The FFL's business was retained to transfer lower receivers, due to an illegal act, he failed to meet his business obligiation. He should be held accountable, he should have the decency and integrity to recover the property or refund money. And do this before the CA AG closes the window on off brand receivers.

Just my opinion, shoot me an PM if you want to continue

Paul Ford

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Maybe a moment of decency will smack him in the face- he'll take responsibility for his actions, and refund your money- when he realizes that his actions could cost him his home.

I looked, not well, but couldn't find anything in CA code/law that states that firearms must be returned after 24 hours for storage infractions. Can you point me in the right direction?

CA regs are pretty thick and I don't know where it is either. I'm going on the word of Ben Cannon ([email protected]), who set up the group buy. Note: he is not the Milpitas FFL.

However, let me ephasize, that the safe problem is a non-issue now. The Cal DOJ is now holding the lowers because, as I understand it, in their opinion, Ben was acting as the FFL, since he was "wholesaling" (or something along those lines, even though he was going through the Milpitas FFL), and there's hearsay that they intend to prosecute on this.

I know the FFL could have done a better job, but this lower business is absolutely crazy. It would take a super-FFL to withstand California DOJ scrutiny, and even then, I'll bet the DOJ could find something. This is the second DOJ FFL AR seizure lately. For the first one, they sezied stripped lowers because they had the letters "AUTO" stamped on them--that was it! Don't think this guy is half-assed. I doubt many gun dealers in the U.S could withstand DOJ-like scrutiny from the ATF.

Anyway, I'm really not all that angry, since I was expecting something like this to happen (1: my lower gets sezied, 2: DOJ announces it won't allow detachables mags on the ARs even after they are declared assault weapons, in complete violation of the law as written).

 

[Huntzman]

Education & Monetary Support

I know there has been a lot of griping about California, and some really believe that it is a lost cause. I'm not prepared to take that stand. The 2nd Amendment applies to everyone of us, individually and collectively. If we allow one to fall, I'm afraid it begins the domino effect. I think the problem is that the "gun grabbers' see the issue singularly, meaning they want to take YOUR guns. Whether it's your .50BMG, Grandpa's M-1 Garand, or Jr's 10/22. Don't kid yourselves, in their eyes they are all evil. So they are purpose driven. Each law, is like their personal footstep towards liberal utopia.

Gun owners unfortunately are a house divided. Hunters, Sporting Clays, Collectors, Handgunners, etc.... We each have our own interests and not much affinity for the others. I remember having a conversation recently with a fellow handgun shooter. The topic went to rifles and I started talking about my wife's AK. You would have thought I told him I had slept with his mom and sister.... at the same time. He actually had the audacity to say how he didn't believe they were legitimate weapons. As incredulous as this sounds, I believe it happens with unacceptable frequency. If we can not find common ground amongst each other, I fear we will be picked off one group at a time.

In addition, how many of our brethren are actually members of the NRA or state level groups?? I'm sure we have heard the poor stories "I haven't the time to join, I'm short on cash right now, I don't shoot rifles..... etc" or maybe we have even said them at one time or another. How many of us write or call our reps to keep them honest.

Now here we are questioning whether or not "dumping" more money into California is a good thing. One of the previous posts said "As California goes, so goes the United States...." You know what, if we don't stand unified, that adage may once again become a grave truth for gun owners. I would hate to see any other states end up like California because their local gun grabbing politicians feel that they can get away with it.

IMHO

Just saw an interesting thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=185005

 

[Sven]

pcf: Suing the FFL, who is a friend of the gun community and risked his neck on this is about the lamest thing I've heard in a while. Yeah, maybe he should have gotten a bigger safe. Same goes for Ben - why punish him?

Remind me not to go hunting with you (unless I have a trauma plate duct taped to my back for incoming fire).

 

[beerslurpy]

The civil rights movement (in regards to segration et al) was fought in the easy states and exported to the southern states against their will. Similarly, the gun rights battle is mostly being fought in the easy and middle of the road states. CA will eventually be dragged along screaming.

Consider the hurdles to winning in CA:
-mostly gun ignorant or anti-gun voting pool
-strongly anti-gun 9th circuit precedent from stupid Silveira v Lockyer case that can only be overturned by an en-banc hearing or a supreme court decision
-lots of anti-gun state and district level judges
-tons of anti-gun politicos in the state legislature and no way to dislodge them thanks to the gerrymandered CA voting districts

I would bet you real money that change in CA will come from outside, just like change in AL and MS in segregation came from the federal level.

 

[Flyboy]

When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide. The site is also helpfull in keeping people up on current events.

SIGarmed, I think you win the prize for the most eloquent argument against constant government surveillance. Californians were doing nothing wrong buying these ARs, and yet the government--by careful monitoring--is using its power to harass and bully the citizens.

Anybody else want to weigh in on how we can trust the government with surveillance power, or shall we just consider this subject closed?

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

California does not have a provision in the state constitution regarding the RKBA.

Until it does, I'm afraid incongruity at best and outright banning of all arms at worst.

There a several states that did/do not have a RKBA provision,
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm (note-not sure how old this paper is, 1994 at least)
and the most common feature seems to be those
that will allow carry, use the "may issue" arbitrary guidelines.

Here's my opinion. California has few options :
1. Amend constitution "giving" RKBA to its citizens.
2. Charge the state with defying the highest law of the nation; The COTUS/BoR, which would lead to 1.
3. Ignore it reap what is sown.

 

[Mr.V.]

In the end, even in a republic, a majority rules. If you cannot get a majority of californian's to care about guns, and that same majority votes for people who infringe gun bills and nominate judges who don't believe the 2nd amendment applies today...you won't have gun rights pure and simple.

As the united states becomes more and more overpopulated and as the mean standard of living goes down, a majority will vote for socialist candidates. Gun rights will be lost. Most won't be able to afford any of the guns in question and so won't really care if other people don't get to have them either.

You can argue until your tongue sloughs off that it isn't American and is unconstitutional, but since every amendment is open to an unbelievable amount of interpretation, you can interpret it to suit whatever you're interested in saying. Then you nominate jurors who believe the same.

Basically the only way to save california is to 1) make sure we don't get any more overpopulated 2) make sure a majority of people feel that they need to be armed.

Otherwise more guns like "assault weapons" (generally >$1000 per rifle + ammo + cleaning + parts + range fees + safe + ..." or .50 BMG (more expensive on all counts) will simply get voted away either actively or passively.

 

[madmike]

As long as this attitude prevails, the NRA ain't gettin a dime from me, even after I leave Cali.

Well, seeing as that "Attitude" was a supposition and opinion from someone not on the NRA BoD, I think you're jumping the gun.

I mean, I have criticisms of the NRA, but really.

I also notice that Nebraska followed Kansas today in following CA's lead on CCW

There CAN'T be more gun owners per capita there, or this wouldn't happen. It's just that CA gunnies hang closer together and notice each other more.

The change will have to come from without, or culturally from within. But with a contempt of law on both sides, within won't happen. And as long as CA gunnies are (justifiably) scared to show themselves, the perception will remain that only "nuts" own guns.

We make a point of talking about them here--my daughter was invited to write about shooting, or about posing for a firearms magazine for her upcoming writing assignment. You create normalcy by BEING normal.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Update

Someone actually got back an AR that was taken by the Cal DOJ in the seizure, using a special form called a LEGR. It allows people to have their firearm returned to them if held by a California gov't agency, if they pass the normal background check, and the agency isn't holding the gun as evidence or are sending it to be melted down (required by law if it was used in a crime).

There were 219 (not 500, as what I was originally hearing) lowers seized, all from the group buy (we thought), organized by Ben Cannon. However, the person who got his lower back was not part of the group buy--he just happened to buy a lower through the FFL at the same time as the rest of us.

Someone who was from the group buy tried to get his lower back using the LEGR form, and was denied.

The thread about this on CalGuns.net: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31554

So the legal issue now, for sure, is does someone who organizes a group buy, and has them shipped to an FFL, qualify as a wholesaler himself and need to be registered as such?

Also, in an effort to stop the flood of lowers entering the state, the Cal DOJ is continuing to threaten out-of-state gun sellers. The DOJ has done this for years with Nevada gun shops (so they won't sell mags to Californians--they usually card you for buying >10 round mags) and following Californians to Nevada gun shows. Just recently they stretched their long arm clear to Florida! http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31453

 

[madmike]

CA tried that with knives, too, threatening most major catalog sellers.

They have no authority outside CA, and can scream all they want. I'd literally tell them to go @#* themselves in the crudest fashion possible, and hang up on them. As long as the sale (and magazines in NV fit this) violate no LOCAL or NV law, CA has nothing to say on the matter. If they even ATTEMPT to file charges, a letter to the court citing jurisdiction will get it dismissed with prejudice.

Dick Daley tries the same thing with WI and IN sellers from time to time.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

madmike, I know, but somehow they have the power to scare the snot out of all the Nevada gunshops anyway. I think maybe they might contact the BATFE to crawl up the gunshops with a microscope. I was also wondering if maybe the Cal DOJ could file some sort of civil lawsuit against the Nevada gunshops. Either way, unless a seller has some sort of very large group buy lined up, they usually decide it isn't worth the hassle.

 

[LAR-15]

Who is running against Lockyer?

 

[Rumpled]

Lockyer is running for Treasurer. Don't know who against.