DON'T THINK THEY'RE CONFISCATING GUNS?

[PABuck_HNTR]

SOME OF YOU DON'T THINK ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. WELL HERE IS AN ARTICLE THAT BOTH SAYS THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING THEM AND THAT THEY TOOK SOME THAT WEREN'T EVEN BANNED GUNS. THEY WERE RETURNED, BUT WILL IT STAY THAT WAY? jUST GOES TO SHOW YOU THAT WE ARE ALWAYS GONNA HAVE TO BE AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON.


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.

[vc1111]

That is a very disturbing thing to read.

It is precisely what 2nd Amendment proponents talk about all the time.

[eldeguello]

Now this is a situation in which a lawsuit against the State of California seems well justified. I'm sure some of the folks whose guns were confiscated suffered "severe emotional trauma" from the "jackbooted government thugs" who attacked their homes!! [:@]

[Briman]

I wonder how these middle of the night raids are carried out?
Do they simply knock on the door?
Or do they toss flashbangs into the house to stun the occupants and come storming in?
On the bright side (if there is one in this story) apparantly noone was hosed with smg fire as he sat up in bed to turn the light on after strangers kicked in his door.

[:@]

[JagMagMan]

It could happen to us all in the near future, legally! If we continue to deny that posibility, as some amongst us are doing!

[Briman]

It could happen to us all in the near future, legally! If we continue to deny that posibility, as some amongst us are doing!

Confiscation of property is not only immoral but is also an indicator of tyranny.
There were two direct ancestors of mine who shot it out with the DOJ, one of them dying in prison when the sonsabitches came to break up their still. They won't be the last in my family to do so.

[WANWTF]

any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a conspicuously protruding pistol grip.

- Why would the pistol grip matter? They have kits now for your favorite shotgun as well (seen them advertised for turkey guns) - as far as the rest of it... I guess my trusty M1 would fit into that catagory... I just don't get these laws... or the gun owners that think that "it won't happen here" (we're not Canada or Australia after all)

[Charlie P]

Just a question. Has Arnold talked about trying to repeal any of these gun laws that California has?

[burniegoeasily]

Scarry. Thanks for sheading some light on the situation fight4yourguns. This is the kind of thing that scares me. Once the ball gets rolling, where will it stop?[:@]

Ask an Ozzie brother what he thinks of this.

[PABuck_HNTR]

Just a question. Has Arnold talked about trying to repeal any of these gun laws that California has?

Don't even try to turn this into a Republican problem! The Democratic Party is the ones MOST responsible for these laws in CA and the United States. Don't you dare try to say that a Republican is now Governor so he has to fix it or he's the one to blame.

Why is it always the Republicans that have to fix the Liberal Democrats messes? Besides we all know that Arnold is NOT going to address this.