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
  #81  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:24 AM
Stevehazard Stevehazard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 276
iTrader: 5 / 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.

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?
Wouldn't that be breaking NFA laws if it was sold as a pistol frame? I think you can only switch back and forth like that if you buy it as a frame only and build it as a pistol first.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:26 AM
jimx jimx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,157
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
he didn't leave anything important out.
What about the "multi-burst trigger activator" charge? Do you know what the item was?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:27 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimx View Post
What about the "multi-burst trigger activator" charge? Do you know what the item was?
Yes, it was allegedly a bumpfire stock that was attached to one of the AW's they found.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:30 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevehazard View Post
Wouldn't that be breaking NFA laws if it was sold as a pistol frame? I think you can only switch back and forth like that if you buy it as a frame only and build it as a pistol first.
You can turn a pistol into a rifle, but you can't turn a rifle into a pistol. It's a one-way-street, so to speak.

In any case, I do not recommend putting a 16+" barrel on your AR pistol. It will permanently render it a rifle, and there is no benefit anyways - To my knowledge, DOJ has not had any issue with people registering pistols so far, other than the few that were allegedly manufactured after 2016 and/or didn't have bullet buttons.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:32 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
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.
On the last point, I don't think there's a colorable Haynes v. US argument. In Haynes, the crime was failure to register. There's no failure to register crime here. It's possession of an unregistered AW. If he didn't register an illegal AW and was charged with failure to register, he could assert a Haynes argument and probably win on it. That's not at all the case here.

If he just PPT'd a pistol lower from me in November 2017, he would have been dead to rights on the manufacturing an AW charge, probably. This is a little more complicated because Scott believes he owned it since 2013. I don't know if that's actually the case because his wife appears to have been the transferee in 2013.

Where I disagree with you on, and I think this is the only way he gets out of it with no felony record (other than political pressure on the DA from gun rights folks in Kern County) is this: you say that "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's not true.

SB 880 reads, "(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5)."

If in fact he is able to show he lawfully possessed it prior to 2016 (together with his ex-wife, rather than his ex-wife being the sole "possessor"), he should have been able to register it, regardless of whether he did a pawn and return. And therefore, the warrant was based on a false premise--that he did not possess it prior to 2016. Whether that means the judge didn't have probable cause to grant it, and therefore fruit of the poisonous tree--I just don't have the knowledge of the relevant law to know one way or another.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:32 AM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 814
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous_Ghost View Post
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.

Well, I live in a state that tells me that if I obey federal law I will be in violation of state law.

To me The Constitution is very clear on the natural right to "keep and bear' arms. I can personally justify not following an unjust law, though I do not own an "assault style" weapon. Thomas Jefferson himself provides this justification in the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
__________________

Last edited by Den60; 05-24-2018 at 11:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:36 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,988
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post

SB 880 reads, "(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5)."

If in fact he is able to show he lawfully possessed it prior to 2016 (together with his ex-wife, rather than his ex-wife being the sole "possessor"), he should have been able to register it, regardless of whether he did a pawn and return. And therefore, the warrant was based on a false premise--that he did not possess it prior to 2016. Whether that means the judge didn't have probable cause to grant it, and therefore fruit of the poisonous tree--I just don't have the knowledge of the relevant law to know one way or another.
That was my thinking as well. The law doesn't get in to the nuisances of transfers only possession.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:37 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,505
iTrader: 159 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strykeback View Post
So this entire thing gets rolling due to wrong caliber selected in the drop down form of the doj and the pawning and then buying back of one of their ARs?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
No, I doubt it has anything to do with caliber. It was probably a 300 blackout. It is very common for generic calibers to be selected when there is not an exact match, especially for 30/300 diameters.

It was probably the fact that there was no BB in the photos. And possibly the fact that it was reacquired post 2016, even though a pawn/redeem should not preclude a AW registration if it was lawfully possessed before 2017.

And also it seems as if DOJ is taking the position that as soon as you crack open a receiver that has a standard mag release, even if there was some other type of fixed mag block, it suddenly becomes an assault weapon.

This is bad news for all featured rifles/pistols with any of the new alternate style mag locks that rely on the action to be cracked opened.

Very bad news.
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 05-24-2018 at 12:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:38 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You can turn a pistol into a rifle, but you can't turn a rifle into a pistol. It's a one-way-street, so to speak.

In any case, I do not recommend putting a 16+" barrel on your AR pistol. It will permanently render it a rifle.

PC 12001, correct.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:39 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
It was probably the fact that there was no BB in the photos.
Incorrect, see the OP.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:39 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
That was my thinking as well. The law doesn't get in to the nuisances of transfers only possession.
Yep, it all depends on if his lawyer can successfully argue that he remained the owner of the gun even while it was in pawn, or if the pawn shop was at any point temporarily the legal owner.

I do not know how ownership laws work with pawn shops. Maybe a calgunner who owns a pawn shop might know.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:41 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimx View Post
What about the "multi-burst trigger activator" charge? Do you know what the item was?
Not to be a d**k, but it's in the OP--it was a Slidefire.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:43 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Yep, it all depends on if his lawyer can successfully argue that he remained the owner of the gun even while it was in pawn, or if the pawn shop was at any point temporarily the legal owner.

I do not know how ownership laws work with pawn shops. Maybe a calgunner who owns a pawn shop might know.
But the plain meaning of the statute doesn't require that he have possessed it at all times since December 31, 2016. Just requires that he possessed it at any time between 2001-2016.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:45 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
But the plain meaning of the statute doesn't require that he have possessed it at all times since December 31, 2016. Just requires that he possessed it at any time between 2001-2016.
Good point.

What a bizarre situation. I never would have predicted a situation arising where someone owned the gun before the cutoff, then transferred it to themselves after the cutoff and tried to register it.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-24-2018 at 11:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:46 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous_Ghost View Post
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.
I wonder what anonymous would be doing in Germany in 1934...
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:53 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,829
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Yep, it all depends on if his lawyer can successfully argue that he remained the owner of the gun even while it was in pawn, or if the pawn shop was at any point temporarily the legal owner.

I do not know how ownership laws work with pawn shops. Maybe a calgunner who owns a pawn shop might know.
We need to call in a pro

Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:55 AM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11,235
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
I wonder what anonymous would be doing in Germany in 1934...
probably help load the jews onto the trains to be gassed?

i wonder if he will also report on other gun owners that aren't fully following the asinine laws we have currently when at the range.

just glad he doesn't live anywhere near me based upon his location in the profile so i won't ever bump into him at the range.
__________________
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
  #98  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:00 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
And also it seems as if DOJ is taking the position that as soon as you crack open a receiver that has a standard mag release, even if there was some other type of fixed mag block, it suddenly becomes an assault weapon.

This is bad news for all featured rifles/pistols with any of the new alternate style mag locks that rely on the action to be cracked opened.
Based on Fred Frausto's action yes. But he seems to have been entirely wrong in his reading of the law.

"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."

The firearm did not have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, assuming it had a post-2017 break-action type of compliance device, because once you insert the mag, you won't be able to detach it without disassembly of the action.

I don't see a way that both Frausto and the DOJ's own regulations are both right.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:02 PM
Stevehazard Stevehazard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 276
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

The transfer was for a frame only. Weather or not he can argue continued possession while in a pawn shop hold or whatever the fact remains it was in a condition in which it had no bullet button on it during 2017. This goes to support what some have been suggesting that if you removed the BB for any reason after 2016 you are not allowed to but it back on.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:03 PM
Spyder's Avatar
Spyder Spyder is online now
Honorary MLC
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 12,526
iTrader: 106 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Where I disagree with you on, and I think this is the only way he gets out of it with no felony record (other than political pressure on the DA from gun rights folks in Kern County) is this: you say that "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's not true.

SB 880 reads, "(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5)."

If in fact he is able to show he lawfully possessed it prior to 2016 (together with his ex-wife, rather than his ex-wife being the sole "possessor"), he should have been able to register it, regardless of whether he did a pawn and return. And therefore, the warrant was based on a false premise--that he did not possess it prior to 2016. Whether that means the judge didn't have probable cause to grant it, and therefore fruit of the poisonous tree--I just don't have the knowledge of the relevant law to know one way or another.
I could see this being the poison. Nowhere in that law does it say that one must be in possession and ownership for the entire time. I could see an argument that possessing one, then selling it, then buying it back in 2017, STILL fits the requirements that allow one to register it as an AW.

The law does NOT say that he had to possess it continually during the entire time. It only says that he had to have possessed it. The law does not say that temporary possession during that time is illegal, or that possession and sale and repurchase during that time, is illegal. It merely says that one must have possessed it during that time window.

And, if something is not illegal, than it is legal.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:07 PM
Diabolus's Avatar
Diabolus Diabolus is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California / Los Angeles
Posts: 4,513
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
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.
Thanks pal... you're excellent on the gun smithing front, and clarifying some complicated matters. I need to bring an upper to you soon for a new brake.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:08 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Good point.

What a bizarre situation. I never would have predicted a situation arising where someone owned the gun before the cutoff, then transferred it to themselves after the cutoff and tried to register it.
Here's another fun one: so let's say I had a BB-AW prior to 2017. I sold it to my buddy. My buddy got fired, needs the cash, and asks me at some point between 1/1/17 - 6/30/18 if I want to buy it back. I say, sure, he removes the evil features and he transfers it to me. According to the plain meaning of the statute, I should be able to then register it. Of course, under the regs, I can't register it for the reason that it's featureless. (And I clearly can't put a BB and evil features back on it, or I'd be illegally manufacturing.) A similar issue to this is being litigated in Villaneuva, I think. (This really is entirely hypothetical.)

Last edited by Califpatriot; 05-24-2018 at 12:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:11 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
I could see this being the poison. Nowhere in that law does it say that one must be in possession and ownership for the entire time. I could see an argument that possessing one, then selling it, then buying it back in 2017, STILL fits the requirements that allow one to register it as an AW.

The law does NOT say that he had to possess it continually during the entire time. It only says that he had to have possessed it. The law does not say that temporary possession during that time is illegal, or that possession and sale and repurchase during that time, is illegal. It merely says that one must have possessed it during that time window.

And, if something is not illegal, than it is legal.
Unfortunately, it's not at all clear whether he in fact possessed it prior to 2017. It could be under the law only his wife possessed it prior to 2017.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:15 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevehazard View Post
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?
DOJ Agent Provost says the farmer told him his wife bought it in 2013 in Southern California.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:15 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,329
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
I could see this being the poison. Nowhere in that law does it say that one must be in possession and ownership for the entire time. I could see an argument that possessing one, then selling it, then buying it back in 2017, STILL fits the requirements that allow one to register it as an AW.

The law does NOT say that he had to possess it continually during the entire time. It only says that he had to have possessed it. The law does not say that temporary possession during that time is illegal, or that possession and sale and repurchase during that time, is illegal. It merely says that one must have possessed it during that time window.

And, if something is not illegal, than it is legal.
Like I said though, I don’t think it matters or poisons the fruit if the officers had a good faith belief that it is not legal to do so.

Superme court in U.S. v Herring held that aside from an intentional or obvious error, of the officer relied on a good faith belief that a crime is being committed, the fruit is not poisoned from the resulting search.

So even if the sun devil ar in question turned out to be legal, everything else is not poisonous fruit so long as the officers obtaining the warrant relied on good faith belief that it is illegal to own that firearm with a bullet button since it was transferred after 2017.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-co...nary-rule.html

Hell, there’s even caselaw where a court clerk accidentally input a warrant that didn’t exist. The resulting search was still valid and not poisonous as the officer conducting the arrest and subsequent search relied on good a good faith belief of the warrant

Last edited by caliguy93; 05-24-2018 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:17 PM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,308
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Man it sure looks like this will be a test case that fleshes out all sort of grey areas/nuances in the new laws.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:19 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous_Ghost View Post
I'm getting a bit sick of the whole "decent law abiding folks" shtick.
Maybe you should go someplace else where people don't believe in the constitution? I'm sure there are plenty such places in CA, both in real life and on the internet.
__________________
"No personal computer will ever have gigabytes of RAM" - Scott Nudds
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:21 PM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 186
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Apparently, yes. Disregard my post everyone. Don't try that. If it's a pistol keep it a short barrel all times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevehazard View Post
Wouldn't that be breaking NFA laws if it was sold as a pistol frame? I think you can only switch back and forth like that if you buy it as a frame only and build it as a pistol first.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:33 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
Man it sure looks like this will be a test case that fleshes out all sort of grey areas/nuances in the new laws.
Only if he doesn't take a plea bargain.

There's a very strong chance that the prosecutor will offer him something like 30 days in jail and 3 years probation (in lieu of whatever "throwing the book at him" could get, probably something insane like 40+ years in prison) if he pleads guilty to felony suppressor possession and unregistered AW possession.

The only way this case could provide any useful case law is if he pleads not guilty and takes it to trial - and history shows that almost never happens, because prosecutors carefully craft their plea bargains to be as irresistible as possible.

Fortunately for everyone, it seems he is at least somewhat well-off financially, so maybe with some additional support from us, he'll choose to fight and win.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:34 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post

Hell, thereís even caselaw where a court clerk accidentally input a warrant that didnít exist. The resulting search was still valid and not poisonous as the officer conducting the arrest and subsequent search relied on good a good faith belief of the warrant
But that's different. Logic in that case was that the poisonous tree rule is essentially a punitive rule meant to prevent misconduct by LEOs, not to prevent accidents by court clerks. But here, the error (if there was one) was by the LEO.

I think you're probably right and a exclusionary rule challenge probably fails, but I'm speculating. All I''m saying is that the logic doesn't apply.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:35 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,333
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous_Ghost View Post
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.
California made a law disregarding the law, so upstanding law abiding folk should disregard it. Shouldn't they?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:36 PM
Strykeback Strykeback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As to his 2 fully paper worked suppressors... As an NFA item dont you have to keep those available to be searched by the ATF when ever they feel like it? Same as SBRs with their tax stamps? Obvioualy all illegal in communist California but wouldnt that be a red flag if they saw the location of those reregisteres or moved into California? CA and DOJ systems dont talk to each other?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:38 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,329
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
But that's different. Logic in that case was that the poisonous tree rule is essentially a punitive rule meant to prevent misconduct by LEOs, not to prevent accidents by court clerks. But here, the error (if there was one) was by the LEO.

I think you're probably right and a exclusionary rule challenge probably fails, but I'm speculating. All I''m saying is that the logic doesn't apply.
What error is that? The court reviewed it all and issued the warrant. Fruit of the poisonous fruit doctrine will likely not have a leg to stand on for that very reason. Here’s a little excerpt from
The link I posted earlier

Quote:
The Court reasoned that the party that had erred in this case, the Clerk of Court, was part of the judiciary and therefore – like the magistrate – not subject to the temptation to subvert the Fourth Amendment. Further, it noted that the exclusionary rule was never meant to regulate courts' conduct. And finally, it pointed out that court employees would have no stake in the outcome of criminal trials and therefore would not be deterred by the suppression of evidence.
Now if the officer intentionally lied to obtain the warrant, that’s a different issue. From my understanding, One officer applies for the warrant, another officer effectuates the search with a good faith reliance on the warrant is a common practice to avoid suppression if the warrant gets Attacked

Last edited by caliguy93; 05-24-2018 at 12:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:46 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
What error is that? The court reviewed it all and issued the warrant. Fruit of the poisonous fruit doctrine will likely not have a leg to stand on for that very reason. Hereís a little excerpt from
The link I posted earlier



Now if the officer intentionally lied to obtain the warrant, thatís a different issue
More I think about it, the worse the exclusionary rule argument is. Even if he should have been allowed to register it under the plain meaning of the statute, he wasn't allowed to assemble it post-2016 (as that would be manufacturing an unregistered AW), which he evidently did based on the combination of the DROS of the stripped lower and his own self-incriminating photos. Hence, probable cause felony occurred and the search warrant is presumably valid.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:50 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
More I think about it, the worse the exclusionary rule argument is. Even if he should have been allowed to register it under the plain meaning of the statute, he wasn't allowed to assemble it post-2016 (as that would be manufacturing an unregistered AW), which he evidently did based on the combination of the DROS of the stripped lower and his own self-incriminating photos. Hence, probable cause felony occurred and the search warrant is presumably valid.
I believe that is why they made a major point of mentioning that they contacted the FFL to verify that it was a receiver-only transfer.

It sounds like possibly this could have been avoided if it was pawned/returned as a complete firearm. Or, better yet of course, not pawned at all.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-24-2018 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:50 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,159
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strykeback View Post
As to his 2 fully paper worked suppressors... As an NFA item dont you have to keep those available to be searched by the ATF when ever they feel like it? Same as SBRs with their tax stamps? Obvioualy all illegal in communist California but wouldnt that be a red flag if they saw the location of those reregisteres or moved into California? CA and DOJ systems dont talk to each other?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
SBRs, suppressors, etc. don't subject you to FFL-like warrantless searches. You're thinking of a class 3 license.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:53 PM
Spyder's Avatar
Spyder Spyder is online now
Honorary MLC
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 12,526
iTrader: 106 / 100%
Default

Yea. I'm angrily curious to see how it plays out.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:58 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,662
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Only if he doesn't take a plea bargain.

There's a very strong chance that the prosecutor will offer him something like 30 days in jail and 3 years probation (in lieu of whatever "throwing the book at him" could get, probably something insane like 40+ years in prison) if he pleads guilty to felony suppressor possession and unregistered AW possession.

The only way this case could provide any useful case law is if he pleads not guilty and takes it to trial - and history shows that almost never happens, because prosecutors carefully craft their plea bargains to be as irresistible as possible.

Fortunately for everyone, it seems he is at least somewhat well-off financially, so maybe with some additional support from us, he'll choose to fight and win.
In other words, if he surrenders all his guns for destruction and never touches one again, ever.

If it were me, I'd fight this tooth and toenail with whatever 2nd A right's group I could muster up.

If he truly had actual suppressors with federal registration paperwork, and not just a couple of fake cans with a "documentation letter" stating that they were legal to own... then he's in a world of hurt on that score, and fighting the other charges if he's certifiably guilty of an NFA item in CA, won't do him a lot of good...

We'd need to be sure of filling a few vacancies on the Supreme Court by the time the 9th Circuit decided they were done with this one.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 05-24-2018, 1:01 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,329
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
More I think about it, the worse the exclusionary rule argument is. Even if he should have been allowed to register it under the plain meaning of the statute, he wasn't allowed to assemble it post-2016 (as that would be manufacturing an unregistered AW), which he evidently did based on the combination of the DROS of the stripped lower and his own self-incriminating photos. Hence, probable cause felony occurred and the search warrant is presumably valid.
I agree, also usually the only way a warrant gets tossed out is if the law enforcement intentionally lied to obtain it. Or if the method used to obtain the Information used to obtain the warrant was a gross violation of the 4a or 5a.

In which this case, the information relied upon the submission of the farmer (that was arguably voluntarily given and DROS records. I donít see this playing well for thand defendant.

Here is the upside for the defendant. He was obviously trying to be a law abiding citizen (no menís rea) to commit a crime. He had legal paperwork for the suppressors from while Living in another state. A jury would be sympathetic to a prominent farmer who tries to keep up with the laws, has no malicious intent, and has actually not done anything other than submit paperwork over the Internet and kept them in his safe. Thatís where they get some Leverage against the DA.

My guess is one wobbler felony and a few misdemeanor charges as the plea bargain with a firearm ownership probation until the felony wobbler is reduced.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 05-24-2018, 1:12 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
If he truly had actual suppressors with federal registration paperwork, and not just a couple of fake cans with a "documentation letter" stating that they were legal to own... then he's in a world of hurt on that score, and fighting the other charges if he's certifiably guilty of an NFA item in CA, won't do him a lot of good...
According to the report, they were Surefire and AAC brand suppressors, with actual NFA tax stamp papers, purchased by the company he owns.

Definitely not fake cans.

They knew to look for a suppressor because one of the rifle's muzzles supposedly had carbon buildup consistent with suppressor usage.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-24-2018 at 1:17 PM..
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 6:26 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.