Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-24-2018, 7:59 AM
jimx jimx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,157
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
3. In November 2017, Scott went to the Bakersfield Get A Gun with the lower only, which was transferred on the DROS form as a "frame only." Get A Gun's owner confirmed to Frausto that the transfer had indeed been of the frame only.


7. and that he did a pawn return on the weapon (whatever that means) and then attempted to register it "after the one year thing" (whatever that means.)
If he is a rich guy why is he pawning a lower????
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:00 AM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 6,033
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimx View Post
If he is a rich guy why is he pawning a lower????
To link his name to it in AFS.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:02 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

What's interesting to me is that it appears the search warrant was unjustified. Yes he tried to register a pistol he DROS'd in 2017, but it otherwise wasn't an illegal weapon because it wasn't even an AW, it had an ARmaglock or DFM or similar device. So while it couldn't be registered, it also wasn't illegal for him to possess.

The DOJ was justified in rejecting the application, but not justified in obtaining a search warrant.

So what I'm wondering is, can the charges for the other items they found stick, when the warrant seems to have been unjustified in the first place?

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-24-2018 at 8:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:03 AM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 6,033
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

That lower was originally dros'd as a frame. Which means it can never be a pistol in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:06 AM
Diabolus's Avatar
Diabolus Diabolus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California / Los Angeles
Posts: 4,522
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
That lower was originally dros'd as a frame. Which means it can never be a pistol in CA.
So it must be a complete AR pistol at the time of DROS? You just cannot declare it a pistol if it is frame only?

Can the gun shop mark it down as an AR pistol if it is frame only or are there some problems with that?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:09 AM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,343
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolus View Post
So it must be a complete AR pistol at the time of DROS? You just cannot declare it a pistol if it is frame only?

Can the gun shop mark it down as an AR pistol if it is frame only or are there some problems with that?
To my knowledge there are no semi-auto AR pistols on the roster, so yeah, it's gonna be an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:09 AM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 6,033
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

No you cannot. You can only dros it as a handgun if you are exempt from the roster, but it has to be done on the FIRST DROS.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:10 AM
Diabolus's Avatar
Diabolus Diabolus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California / Los Angeles
Posts: 4,522
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
To my knowledge there are no semi-auto AR pistols on the roster, so yeah, it's gonna be an issue.
So AR pistols cannot be DROSed at all? The laws are so convoluted now its impossible to keep up with everything.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:15 AM
guest1's Avatar
guest1 guest1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 926
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post

9. He opened a case for the Sun Devil. SAS Frausto advised that in order to render the firearm safe, he had to depress the rear take down of the firearm and separate the lower and upper receivers in order to remove the magazine. Upon doing so, the firearm was rendered safe, but now met the criteria of an·assault weapon in that it had a standard magazine release button that then allowed the user to simply insert a magazine into the magazine well and remove by depressing the release mechanism. At this time, SAS Frausto closed the firearm and returned it into its original configuration, minus the magazine. As such, this firearm now met the criteria of an assault weapon in that it was a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine, but has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
Just trying to learn as much about these laws as possible.
Am I understanding this clearly that while the action is open, you should not be able to insert a magazine into the rifle with any mag catch that will hold the magazine in place while the action is open?
What if you can insert the magazine while the action is open but it would not latch and fall out unless the action is closed? with that meet the law requirements?
__________________

Last edited by guest1; 05-24-2018 at 8:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:23 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
That lower was originally dros'd as a frame. Which means it can never be a pistol in CA.
It's irrelevant because he wasn't charged with any violations of the Unafe Handgun laws. He was charged with manufacturing an AW, a totally unrelated law.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-24-2018 at 8:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:33 AM
bigb0886 bigb0886 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 293
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Where did you get a copy of the report?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:36 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
What's interesting to me is that it appears the search warrant was unjustified. Yes he tried to register a pistol he DROS'd in 2017, but it otherwise wasn't an illegal weapon because it wasn't even an AW, it had an ARmaglock or DFM or similar device. So while it couldn't be registered, it also wasn't illegal for him to possess.

The DOJ was justified in rejecting the application, but not justified in obtaining a search warrant.

So what I'm wondering is, can the charges for the other items they found stick, when the warrant seems to have been unjustified in the first place?
Seem to fall under a simple view of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:37 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigb0886 View Post
Where did you get a copy of the report?
He got it direct from the court. I've seen the report as well, we opted not to post the actual report for privacy concerns of the member. But the OP's summary of the contents is excellent, he didn't leave anything important out.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:37 AM
leadchucker leadchucker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 622
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolus View Post
The laws are so convoluted now its impossible to keep up with everything.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
-Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Last edited by leadchucker; 05-24-2018 at 8:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:46 AM
bigb0886 bigb0886 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 293
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

@cockedandglocked I just DMd you
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:04 AM
xxINKxx's Avatar
xxINKxx xxINKxx is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 4,309
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

So they make gun crimes more relaxed for criminals/gang members, but go crazy on someone who is actually trying to make it right and follow the laws.
__________________
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:06 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
I assume you're referring to a patriot pin or armaglock or some fixed mag solution like that. Maybe, but the police report is entirely silent on that. Refers to "traditional magazine releases" and that's it.
Thanks for posting the info. I get the impression he will probably shake most of the charges depending on the exact configuration of the other rifles. He looks screwed though for having suppressors, unless the warrant can be thrown out.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder

Last edited by Sousuke; 05-24-2018 at 9:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:25 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3,860
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
That lower was originally dros'd as a frame. Which means it can never be a pistol in CA.
2. Frausto and Provost then looked at the DROS record for that serial number, which showed the pistol having been purchased in 2013 as a fully assembled and functioning firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:27 AM
Stevehazard Stevehazard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 277
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Couple concerns....
1. What was the search warrant even for?
2. So the agent inspects the pistol in question, it sounds like it has a Franklin DFM mag, removes mag, assembles the weapon without mag thus himself manufacturing an AW, says Scott has an AW and proceeds to search more????
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:38 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevehazard View Post
Couple concerns....
1. What was the search warrant even for?
2. So the agent inspects the pistol in question, it sounds like it has a Franklin DFM mag, removes mag, assembles the weapon without mag thus himself manufacturing an AW, says Scott has an AW and proceeds to search more????
The only conclusion I can come to is that it was the fact that it was transferred in 2017 which on the surface would make it appear that it was not eligible for registration. But its really muddy because A. He possessed them prior to 2017 and B. the pistol is not in an AW config at the time of inspection (despite what the agent claimed)
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:39 AM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,300
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xxINKxx View Post
So they make gun crimes more relaxed for criminals/gang members, but go crazy on someone who is actually trying to make it right and follow the laws.
See it all the time... violent crime would go waaay down if we kept gang members locked up when they are (re)arrested with firearms. But we don’t do that; they often get time served plus probation
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
[BTW, I have no problem seeing DEA Agents and drug cops hanging from ropes, but that's a separate political issue.]
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:45 AM
BigPun762's Avatar
BigPun762 BigPun762 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,216
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevehazard View Post
Couple concerns....
1. What was the search warrant even for?
2. So the agent inspects the pistol in question, it sounds like it has a Franklin DFM mag, removes mag, assembles the weapon without mag thus himself manufacturing an AW, says Scott has an AW and proceeds to search more????
The second is a concern even for featureless. People should be permanently attaching kydex grips as well so they cannot be removed by anyone. They essentially manufacture the AW yet you will be the one charged with it? How is this even right?!?!?! This is wrong on so many levels.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:45 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Seem to fall under a simple view of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine.
Probable cause is a fairly low standard, which is all that was necessary for the issuance of the warrant. Even if the AR pistol was fine, the stuff found under the warrant stemming from the AR pistol is still likely admissible.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:46 AM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11,313
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

i would vote not guilty if i was on the jury as defiance to the bs laws.

too bad he will not be in the same county for my jury summons.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalSig1911 View Post
Preppers canceled my order this afternoon because I called them a disgrace... Not ordering from those clowns again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrepperGunShop View Post
Truthfully, we cancelled your order because of your lack of civility and your threats ... What is a problem is when you threaten my customer service team and make demands instead of being civil. Plain and simple just don't be an a**hole (where you told us to shove it).
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:47 AM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 46,540
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolus View Post
So it must be a complete AR pistol at the time of DROS?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolus View Post
You just cannot declare it a pistol if it is frame only?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolus View Post
Can the gun shop mark it down as an AR pistol if it is frame only or are there some problems with that?
No.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-24-2018, 9:51 AM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 46,540
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolus View Post
So AR pistols cannot be DROSed at all? The laws are so convoluted now its impossible to keep up with everything.
You are confusing what a DROS is.

A DROS is a dealers record of sale.
It occurs on all transfers occurring through a CA FFL.
A DROS also occurs during a PPT as that's done at a CA FFL.

Civilians in CA can only purchase a new handgun if it's on the roster.
Law Enforcement are exempt of the roster and can purchase an off-roster pistol.
Law Enforcement can then PPT an off-roster handgun to civilians as PPT's are exempt of the roster.
Your out-of-state father, mother, son or daughter are also exempt of the roster and can purchase an off-roster handgun and you can do an interstate family transfer.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:18 AM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 187
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Or keep the upper and lower separate, as the DOJ regs now state when separated, but both upper and lower still in owner's possession, doesn't constitute a semi-auto. Not being semi-auto automatically disqualifies the separated receivers from AW status.

That's what I've been doing. Hope it actually provides real legal protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittty View Post

Several years ago a LE friend told me to always keep an empty magazine in my bb'd rifle. His reason was that if a mag was already in it, it meets "his" definition of being a "fixed" mag rifle, which made it legal.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:23 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Bullet button without a magazine inserted into it was always fine. For two reasons:

1) It could accept a mag, sure... but then that mag couldn't be detached without a tool, thus the rifle was not capable of accepting a detachable magazine. The "ability to accept a non-detachable magazine" was never an AW feature.

2) if it weren't fine, we'd have heard hundreds of stories of people getting arrested during magazine changes at the range.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-24-2018 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:27 AM
Rcjackrabbit Rcjackrabbit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Well, nobody forced the officers to take jobs for CalDOJ's BOF. There's plenty of LEO jobs where you're not taking away guns from decent, law abiding folks.
Bingo. This is the right answer. Just because it was legal to round up Jews in 1930s Germany, doesn't mean it was right.

Legal does not equal moral.

California is the pit of hell.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:32 AM
Stevehazard Stevehazard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 277
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

So because he did some weird transfer in 2017 as frame only he was ineligible to register the pistol and thus also ineligible to return the pistol back to a BBAW and then manufactured an "assault pistol" when he submitted photos of it to DOJ as a BBAW??

This is the basis of the search warrant and the manufacture crime?
After be denied he realizes he is in error and begins to comply though other methods like a Franklin DFM.
Pistol is inspected and in compliance.
Pistol is then altered out of compliance by DOJ agent. WTF???
Search proceeds.

Other items are found.
Whatever other guns were found and in what configuration etc would need more info.

Bringing his suppressors into CA??? Come on man... what's his excuse? The ex wife got the NV home or something?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:35 AM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,733
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

In a free state, he broke no laws and would still be a free man.

We're so f**ked in Kalifornia.

It also appears to be a "fruit of the poisonous tree" scenario. Hopefully he gets a really good lawyer.

It was foolish of him to have all those standard mag releases and 2 suppressors in Kali though. Stupid is as stupid does.

But the bottom line is NONE of what he did is illegal right across the state line. And that's BS.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:36 AM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 6,033
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
2. Frausto and Provost then looked at the DROS record for that serial number, which showed the pistol having been purchased in 2013 as a fully assembled and functioning firearm.

3. In November 2017, Scott went to the Bakersfield Get A Gun with the lower only, which was transferred on the DROS form as a "frame only." Get A Gun's owner confirmed to Frausto that the transfer had indeed been of the frame only.


I guess the confusing thing here is if they are talking about the same weapon. Did his wife buy it as an SSE pistol and then in 2017 do the pawn shop shuffle on the frame only to get his name on AFS?

If so, to cocked's point, since it was confirmed as a frame only in 2017 by the FFL, he assembled it into an assault weapon. Weather it still had a pistol disposition could be moot at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:44 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3,860
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
3. In November 2017, Scott went to the Bakersfield Get A Gun with the lower only, which was transferred on the DROS form as a "frame only." Get A Gun's owner confirmed to Frausto that the transfer had indeed been of the frame only.


I guess the confusing thing here is if they are talking about the same weapon. Did his wife buy it as an SSE pistol and then in 2017 do the pawn shop shuffle on the frame only to get his name on AFS?

If so, to cocked's point, since it was confirmed as a frame only in 2017 by the FFL, he assembled it into an assault weapon. Weather it still had a pistol disposition could be moot at this point.
My understanding of it is he bought a SSE pistol in 2013. Then he pawned either the pistol or just the lower. Then he re-acquired it after year of it in pawn and it was DROSed as just a lower.

He likely thought he was just getting his property back IMO and didnt consider the second DROS would disqualify the registerable status.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:54 AM
Stevehazard Stevehazard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 277
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Could the pistol of been legally purchased out of state though a prior residency or dual residency in 2013 and then legally been brought in as an off roster pistol that way?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:54 AM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,331
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

my bet is that this pistol had a bullet Botton on it when he sent the photos in.

for what its worth the roster thing is irrelevant. he transferred a lower receiver after 2017. in no circumstance can this have a bullet button and eligible for registration. if it does, he committed a crime and sent a photo to the DOJ of the crime.

that is enough to get a valid warrant issued.

when doj gets there, they find many other illegal firearms and parts. no poisonous tree, and no poisonous fruit.

the only real issue is that he was required to send a photo, so maybe theres a 5th amendment issue there but I doubt it since he wasn't in custody. it would take a Supreme Court decision to rule that being forced to send photos online for government mandated registration is considered custody and interrogation. both of which is required to have a valid 5th amendment challenge.

it seems like the guy slapped the BB on his ar pistol thinking the worst thing is they will reject his gun as its ineligible since it was after 2017. but he forgot about the fact its illegal to put a BB on a post 2017 transferred firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:56 AM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 187
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

There are other stories of people trying to register 2017 BB builds, or trying to register pre-2017 builds with traditional mag releases. Those cases agents supposedly just came by to pick up the illegal firearm for destruction. No further action due to owner compliance.

Similar situation with Scott manufacturing a 2017 DROS'd build, but a search warrant?! I guess being a short barrel pistol with ambiguous brace makes DOJ look twice. Perhaps cocked might wanna update the registration guide to suggest registering pistol receivers with 16" barrels to be safe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
My understanding of it is he bought a SSE pistol in 2013. Then he pawned either the pistol or just the lower. Then he re-acquired it after year of it in pawn and it was DROSed as just a lower.

He likely thought he was just getting his property back IMO and didnt consider the second DROS would disqualify the registerable status.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:08 AM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 6,033
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyPhD View Post
There are other stories of people trying to register 2017 BB builds, or trying to register pre-2017 builds with traditional mag releases. Those cases agents supposedly just came by to pick up the illegal firearm for destruction. No further action due to owner compliance.
That could have been the case if it weren't for the other 8 or 9 illegal AW's and suppressors.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:12 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
my bet is that this pistol had a bullet Botton on it when he sent the photos in.
Unless Sean Provost from DOJ is lying, that's exactly what happened.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:15 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyPhD View Post
Perhaps cocked might wanna update the registration guide to suggest registering pistol receivers with 16" barrels to be safe?
No, the barrel needs to stay under 16", otherwise it's not a pistol anymore.

Again, there was no issue with this man's pistol being a pistol. (It was momentarily charged as an SBR, but the agent caught the mistake and deleted that charge). The fact that it was a pistol was not ultimately a problem whatsoever. The problem was with its alleged status of being an AW manufactured after it became illegal to do so. He would be in exactly the same situation if it had been an 18" rifle.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-24-2018 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:15 AM
Anonymous_Ghost's Avatar
Anonymous_Ghost Anonymous_Ghost is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Silly Con Valley
Posts: 186
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Well, nobody forced the officers to take jobs for CalDOJ's BOF. There's plenty of LEO jobs where you're not taking away guns from decent, law abiding folks.
I'm getting a bit sick of the whole "decent law abiding folks" shtick. If you really believe that then quit complaining and abide the dam law! Seems like there is a bonafide double-standard here where you can just disregard gun laws because you don't like them; couple that with the "will not comply bunch", "vote not guilty/jury nullification", "the cops should selectively enforce stuff we don't like for those we deem similar", etc.

On the other hand, when it comes to just about everything else, it's all about law and order/tough on punishment rhetoric. You simply can't have it both ways and it just sounds foolish when people speak out of both sides of their mouths. Celebrating the chosen outlaws while condemning the ones you disagree with. Again, if all these "upstanding law abiding folk" would just abide the law then you'd have no problem. If you're gonna wear your "law abiding" badge with pride and esteem then abide the dam law and don't complain and/or blame the law that you so proudly abide with pride/honor.
__________________
Freedom thrives on the illusion of choice. Slaves feel free when they get to choose a different side of the same coin. This distracts them from the bonds of their economic chains and ensures their allegiance to their captors. ~Me
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:21 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.