Post Registration Inspection by DOJ!!??

[God Bless America]

Originally Posted by Shumba

Also a reminder that this forum is absolutely watched by various LEO organizations.


A couple of years ago I had a personal visit from an LE Agency outside of my area as a direct result from a post I had on Calguns. They had a legit reason to contact me and everything was worked out/cleared up. But they did show up and had printed out copies of my post from Calguns.

Ok but did their investigation lead them to CGN, or did monitoring CGN lead them to investigate? There is a difference.

[Shumba]

Originally Posted by God Bless America

Ok but did their investigation lead them to CGN, or did monitoring CGN lead them to investigate? There is a difference.

Quick follow-up. Don't really want to go through the long story (it was not a huge deal and it was not a gun/gun violation), but just want to remind people that this is a public forum and LE agencies do keep an eye on it.


My situation occurred about 5 years ago and it was a LE agency monitoring CGN that lead to investigators contacting me (not an investigation that caused them to look at CGN). They identified me through CGN. They had a legit reason to contact me and the contact/meeting was very cordial. Just investigators doing their job. They did bring print outs of screenshots from CGN. They knew my background before they arrived and the way it was handled (very professional and very cordial) may have been influenced by them knowing ahead of time (through their investigation) that I am Reserve LEO.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Two points to consider:

1) The DOJ has never broadly opined that a "Disassembled AR15 is not an Assault Rifle." Many folks have extrapolated that position from the content of the BBAW Registration Regs which did contain such a position, but those regs were only for the purpose of determining which weapons qualified for registration. They were not issued for the purpose of determining the applicability of criminal statutes. The point is also now moot as the regulations have been withdrawn.

2) And the above point aside, it actually does reconcile quite well with the DOJ regs. The whole point is that Nguyen was convicted of possessing something that was not (yet) and Assault Weapon. To borrow your example of the separated AR15 parts, Nguyen was convicted where his "attempt" was to marry up those parts at some future time.

The regulations weren't withdrawn

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

The regulations weren't withdrawn

Please refer to the OAL website: https://oal.ca.gov/rulemaking_proces...ecent-actions/

It shows the DOJ BBAW Regulations as being withdrawn on 07/09/2018.

[lrdchivalry]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Please refer to the OAL website: https://oal.ca.gov/rulemaking_proces...ecent-actions/

It shows the DOJ BBAW Regulations as being withdrawn on 07/09/2018.

According to the link you provided, it appears only 5460 was withdrawn. I think I am reading it correctly, if so it only mentions one proposed regulation being withdrawn.

[chris]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

~~~~~~~~~
I'm not at all convinced that CA DOJ and California LE agencies would even comply, if and when a future SC ruled that some/most of CA's anti-gun laws were unenforceable.
Just consider how this state government has acted towards the US Government, in the face of other federal rulings regarding, for example, immigration matters.
The Dems in Sacramento have tremendous egos and cockiness these days, as well as coming across as fearless. It's been a long time since anyone knocked them down a few pegs.

Of course they wont comply. Immigration alone should tell us this state will never ever follow federal law or a court ruling. They are FF****** nuts here. Bay Area arrogance controls this state.

[Packy14]

Originally Posted by njineermike

Believes "unregistering" would magically take his weapon off a hypothetical list of the very first weapons confiscated, then calls out other for illogical thinking.

Under what grounds. You guys are ridiculous.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Packy14

Under what grounds. You guys are ridiculous.

When they outlaw all of them right after gavin swears in, even your magic "unregistering" wont make the paper trail suddenly vanish.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by njineermike

When they outlaw all of them right after gavin swears in, even your magic "unregistering" wont make the paper trail suddenly vanish.

And if things get that bad you think pre 2014 "paper trails" don't exist? Or that other information doesn't exist and is known?

Serious fantasies about some people retaining their gun rights while others do not. And all this based on information- without willingly giving it to them you are completely invisible?

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

And if things get that bad you think pre 2014 "paper trails" don't exist? Or that other information doesn't exist and is known?

Serious fantasies about some people retaining their gun rights while others do not. And all this based on information- without willingly giving it to them you are completely invisible?

That's because you live where you do. Millions of completely untraceable firearms exist nationwide.

[Packy14]

Originally Posted by njineermike

When they outlaw all of them right after gavin swears in, even your magic "unregistering" wont make the paper trail suddenly vanish.

When it comes to that hopefully I'll be in a different state and my guns definitely will be. That being said why don't you go check out Colorado guns, no one cares about your opinion since you don't live here.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Packy14

When it comes to that hopefully I'll be in a different state and my guns definitely will be. That being said why don't you go check out Colorado guns, no one cares about your opinion since you don't live here.

Just knowing your delicate little panties get wadded up keeps me here. Feel better now?

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

And if things get that bad you think pre 2014 "paper trails" don't exist? Or that other information doesn't exist and is known?

Serious fantasies about some people retaining their gun rights while others do not. And all this based on information- without willingly giving it to them you are completely invisible?

Ya know, I always wondered why every range I ever been to had a camera pointed down the end of the lanes. Now we know, it was to get a mugshot of you holding your firearm that they are going to confiscate after the guy with the perfect hair becomes governor.

[walmart_ar15]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

And if things get that bad you think pre 2014 "paper trails" don't exist? Or that other information doesn't exist and is known?

Serious fantasies about some people retaining their gun rights while others do not. And all this based on information- without willingly giving it to them you are completely invisible?

True story. Friend of mine left CA 15+ years ago to free America pursuing a better career opportunity, however does flys back to CA every so often to join us in competition shooting.

Couple years ago, on his fly home, Airline misplaced his gun luggage to a flight to Japan. Long story short, to recover his rifle, it involved the airline, TSA, and US Customs. Customs guy was cool and indicated that it is not my friends faults and just needed to fill out some paper works. He was able to state exactly when my friend had bought his rifle, where his old address were, and confirmed his current out of State address, etc. Keep in mind the rifle was bought in CA in mid 2000's.

Yeah, they keep records and they can find you.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by lrdchivalry

According to the link you provided, it appears only 5460 was withdrawn. I think I am reading it correctly, if so it only mentions one proposed regulation being withdrawn.

11 CCR 5460 was the only regulation submitted. That single regulation sought to initiate the process for public hearings on this language:

5460 Application of Definitions

The definition of terms in section 5471 of this chapter shall apply to the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 30515.

See transmittal at http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...efinitions.pdf

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by lrdchivalry

According to the link you provided, it appears only 5460 was withdrawn. I think I am reading it correctly, if so it only mentions one proposed regulation being withdrawn.

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

The regulations weren't withdrawn

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

11 CCR 5460 was the only regulation submitted. That single regulation sought to initiate the process for public hearings on this language:See transmittal at http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...efinitions.pdf

Gents,

Thanks for the correction. I shoulda dug deeper when researching my post. I took my guidance from the earlier thread on the subject and DOJ website. The DOJ site didn't provide the full CCR reference, only the chapter.

[Packy14]

Originally Posted by njineermike

Just knowing your delicate little panties get wadded up keeps me here. Feel better now?

Ok cutie pie 🥧

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by walmart_ar15

True story. Friend of mine left CA 15+ years ago to free America pursuing a better career opportunity, however does flys back to CA every so often to join us in competition shooting.

Couple years ago, on his fly home, Airline misplaced his gun luggage to a flight to Japan. Long story short, to recover his rifle, it involved the airline, TSA, and US Customs. Customs guy was cool and indicated that it is not my friends faults and just needed to fill out some paper works. He was able to state exactly when my friend had bought his rifle, where his old address were, and confirmed his current out of State address, etc. Keep in mind the rifle was bought in CA in mid 2000's.

Yeah, they keep records and they can find you.

Yeah, it's nuts. So many stories similar to that and my own experience leads me to believe the information is known.

For me the entrance into the club is legal gun ownership. They know and have spent tons of time and money on knowing that. Tons of organizations track the information too. They obviously could care less about criminal gun ownership.

But still we have people dividing the line between "you are a gun owner that gave them info and I am a gun owner that was smart and didn't". If they ever do work up the nerve to take them away, are the guys that didn't register going to stand in the bushes and laugh as we all get carted away? It's such a bizarre fantasy.

I would hope if it ever came to that we would stand together, and I also would assume that anyone with a firearm is a target at that point.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Packy14

Ok cutie pie 🥧

Wrong website.

[Featureless]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

And if things get that bad you think pre 2014 "paper trails" don't exist? Or that other information doesn't exist and is known?

Maybe. Maybe not. Pre 2014 EBR purchases are a major reason for this latest registration push by the state.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Yeah, it's nuts. So many stories similar to that and my own experience leads me to believe the information is known.

For me the entrance into the club is legal gun ownership. They know and have spent tons of time and money on knowing that. Tons of organizations track the information too. They obviously could care less about criminal gun ownership.

But still we have people dividing the line between "you are a gun owner that gave them info and I am a gun owner that was smart and didn't". If they ever do work up the nerve to take them away, are the guys that didn't register going to stand in the bushes and laugh as we all get carted away? It's such a bizarre fantasy.

I would hope if it ever came to that we would stand together, and I also would assume that anyone with a firearm is a target at that point.

You're missing the point. Most places, this isn't going to happen. CA, probably coming soon. Lots of people like to say the rank and file LEO disagree and wont do it, but when push comes to shove, look how many right here are more than happy to have a "felons" weapons confiscated. Once the bill is passed again (and it will be), and slimeball signs it (which he will), The RAWs and "unregistered" RAWs will be first on the list. Those with a harder to follow paper trail will likely have more time to hope SCOTUS gets the case, because you can lay good money in Vegas the 9th will back it up. We wont be pointing and laughing, because we're next if they're not stopped.

And EVERYONE will get a visit. All owners that didn't turn the firearms in or get them out of state WILL be labeled felons, and even if SCOTUS overturns it, that label will stick and be pretty hard to get expunged.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Featureless

Maybe. Maybe not. Pre 2014 EBR purchases are a major reason for this latest registration push by the state.

If they wanted people to register their pre-2014 guns, they'd have made the process a little easier I would think. They could've gotten at least 50% of eligible firearms registered, easily, by just following the letter of the law and nothing more. Instead, they made a conscious and expensive effort to make it as convoluted and unrewarding as possible to ensure that less than 5% registered.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

If they wanted people to register their pre-2014 guns, they'd have made the process a little easier I would think. They could've gotten at least 50% of eligible firearms registered, easily, by just following the letter of the law and nothing more. Instead, they made a conscious and expensive effort to make it as convoluted and unrewarding as possible to ensure that less than 5% registered.

Or it was an easy way to create a metric crap ton of prohibited people. Crappy website wont be a legal defender when the trial date rolls around.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by njineermike

All owners that didn't turn the firearms in or get them out of state WILL be labeled felons, and even if SCOTUS overturns it, that label will stick and be pretty hard to get expunged.

Unfortunately, I share your worries on this topic.

[Packy14]

Originally Posted by njineermike

Wrong website.

You're the one talkin about panties.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Packy14

You're the one talkin about panties.

Ok, you can have the last word.

[SVT-40]

Originally Posted by njineermike

EVERYONE will get a visit. All owners that didn't turn the firearms in or get them out of state WILL be labeled felons, and even if SCOTUS overturns it, that label will stick and be pretty hard to get expunged.

How do you get "labeled" as a "felon"?

Being a "felon" requires one first to be charged with a felony crime, then be convicted in court, or accept a plea bargain to a felony charge prior to trial.

To be "charged" with a felony there has to be actual evidence legally obtained by the authorities which shows a particular individual actually committed a felony. A DA would have to review this "evidence" and believe there was enough evidence to obtain a conviction in court in order to file a felony charge and then go to court...

How would any Leo organization know you didn't move your firearms out of state, or sell them out of state?

Both would be legal and would prevent any prosecution...

The Everyone will be a "felon" cry is simply FUD.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

How do you get "labeled" as a "felon"?

Being a "felon" requires one first to be charged with a felony crime, then be convicted in court, or accept a plea bargain to a felony charge prior to trial.

To be "charged" with a felony there has to be actual evidence legally obtained by the authorities which shows a particular individual actually committed a felony. A DA would have to review this "evidence" and believe there was enough evidence to obtain a conviction in court in order to file a felony charge and then go to court...

How would any Leo organization know you didn't move your firearms out of state, or sell them out of state?

Both would be legal and would prevent any prosecution...

The Everyone will be a "felon" cry is simply FUD.

Yes, once adjudicated, you are a felon, but even if SCOTUS strikes the law down, that could take several years, and meanwhile, that conviction wont be easy to remove.

How many people are just finding out RIGHT NOW about the laws passed almost 2 years ago? Lots of residents are likely to find out they broke the law when the APPS crew comes knocking.

[SVT-40]

Originally Posted by njineermike

Yes, once adjudicated, you are a felon, but even if SCOTUS strikes the law down, that could take several years, and meanwhile, that conviction wont be easy to remove.

How many people are just finding out RIGHT NOW about the laws passed almost 2 years ago? Lots of residents are likely to find out they broke the law when the APPS crew comes knocking.

You still have to be actually charged and convicted based on real evidence.

Not registering isn't evidence of any crime. So if a person is just finding out now about the registration requirements, the legal remedy is featureless.

The "APPS" Officers would have to have actual evidence of a crime to obtain a search warrant.

They would have to have actual evidence that an individual didn't make their firearm featureless...

It's like saying you need evidence that you don't beat your wife to avoid prosecution for beating your wife....

Just ain't happening, and it is FUD and hysterics.

The sky is not falling chicken little....

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

You still have to be actually charged and convicted based on real evidence.

Not registering isn't evidence of any crime. So if a person is just finding out now about the registration requirements, the legal remedy is featureless.

The "APPS" Officers would have to have actual evidence of a crime to obtain a search warrant.

They would have to have actual evidence that an individual didn't make their firearm featureless...

It's like saying you need evidence that you don't beat your wife to avoid prosecution for beating your wife....

Just ain't happening, and it is FUD and hysterics.

The sky is not falling chicken little....

The OP example is a person attempting to comply and getting a visit from DOJ LEO (whatever that is) anyway. Evidently not APPS, but something along those lines. That means they ARE paying attention and already enforcing law based on paperwork submitted. I don't for one second believe if the outright ban they'd love to implement were to occur, they'd balk at similar enforcement from day 1. The DOJ already knows who registered firearms as RAWs and who bought after 2014. Sending an officer or 2 over to see why any specific RAW or semi didn't show up as destroyed, sold, or turned in isn't rocket science. It's a quick database query for the list. If it's out of state, you're fine. If Jim Bob Averagejoe has a rifle on the list purchased after 2014 and didn't know the byzantine law, he's screwed. If he's convicted, then the law is overturned, is his conviction also immediately overturned?

I'm asking because that's what concerns me. If I'm wrong, I dont mind be educated on the subject.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by njineermike

The OP example is a person attempting to comply and getting a visit from DOJ LEO (whatever that is) anyway. Evidently not APPS, but something along those lines. That means they ARE paying attention and already enforcing law based on paperwork submitted. I don't for one second believe if the outright ban they'd love to implement were to occur, they'd balk at similar enforcement from day 1. The DOJ already knows who registered firearms as RAWs and who bought after 2014. Sending an officer or 2 over to see why any specific RAW or semi didn't show up as destroyed, sold, or turned in isn't rocket science. It's a quick database query for the list. If it's out of state, you're fine. If Jim Bob Averagejoe has a rifle on the list purchased after 2014 and didn't know the byzantine law, he's screwed. If he's convicted, then the law is overturned, is his conviction also immediately overturned?

I'm asking because that's what concerns me. If I'm wrong, I dont mind be educated on the subject.

What many continue to misunderstand is that while it is possible for the APPS agents to visit you based on registration information, in order to gain access to your home and safe they need one of two things: 1) Your consent RO 2) a warrant.

Don't ever consent to a search.

There have been many discussions (some even in this thread) about how high the bar is to obtain a warrant. After 90 days or so, the information in the RAW database is no longer "timely" as to where the RAW may or may not be and the state would have to provide some evidence that a crime is or has been committed. An entry in the database con neither confirm nor deny the location or condition of said property (eg. I am not required to prove that I removed the RAW from the state).

[CandG]

Originally Posted by mshill

What many continue to misunderstand is that while it is possible for the APPS agents to visit you based on registration information, in order to gain access to your home and safe they need one of two things: 1) Your consent RO 2) a warrant.

Don't ever consent to a search.

There have been many discussions (some even in this thread) about how high the bar is to obtain a warrant. After 90 days or so, the information in the RAW database is no longer "timely" as to where the RAW may or may not be and the state would have to provide some evidence that a crime is or has been committed. An entry in the database con neither confirm nor deny the location or condition of said property (eg. I am not required to prove that I removed the RAW from the state).

Concur. I put similar info in my signature to try to spread the word, because in all but 1 case of DOJ agent visits, a warrant was not presented. But, for whatever reason, permission to search was granted in every case, and in all but 1 or 2 cases, guns were seized as a result. Clearly people are not as informed about their rights as they should be. Despite the agent's "promises" to the contrary, they will not cut you any slack for "being cooperative". If DOJ can seize any of your guns, they will.

At any rate, the APPS team has (at least temporarily) halted their knock-and-talk scheme, we haven't had any new reports since mid-April. They seem to simply be using email to communicate their concerns to people now, and giving people a chance to rectify their issues. I'm guessing someone important "strongly suggested" they should knock it off with the gestapo tactics, especially when they have a backlog of 10,000 armed prohibited persons, the job that's supposed to be their only priority.

Still, be vigilant, they could decide to send out their SS Officers, er, APPS Agents again in the future.

[Discogodfather]

Mass confiscation itself is a bizarre fantasy, it seems to want to get to the point of 1984. I don't think it's ever going to remotely get to that. It's way too much trouble when you can win 20 different ways that require no such theatrics.

I don't even think felony conviction is a real possibility for a average law abiding person. Sure, tacked on to a career criminal, but for someone who just didn't hear about the whole law and reg thing? I think most LEO in rural areas won't care, and most others will just confiscate and that will be the end of it.

So there is the "mass confiscation" via slight of hand over years and years. Also, as time goes on, we will see fewer and fewer AW because people will finally get the word and convert to non-AW.

[SVT-40]

Originally Posted by njineermike

The OP example is a person attempting to comply and getting a visit from DOJ LEO (whatever that is) anyway. Evidently not APPS, but something along those lines. That means they ARE paying attention and already enforcing law based on paperwork submitted.

The Op in this thread is a very different scenario than what you propose. He had issues which led to a search warrant being issued. The SW was obtained because there was evidence of a felony.

Originally Posted by njineermike

I don't for one second believe if the outright ban they'd love to implement were to occur, they'd balk at similar enforcement from day 1.

In order to have an "outright ban" they California would have to pas a law. Now obviously any "outright ban" which had a component where the Police would go door to door for confiscation would not be Constitutional on it's face.

Look at the recent Stay by the 9th circuit regarding the magazine ban.

Originally Posted by njineermike

The DOJ already knows who registered firearms as RAWs and who bought after 2014. Sending an officer or 2 over to see why any specific RAW or semi didn't show up as destroyed, sold, or turned in isn't rocket science. It's a quick database query for the list. If it's out of state, you're fine. If Jim Bob Averagejoe has a rifle on the list purchased after 2014 and didn't know the byzantine law, he's screwed.

You don't seem to understand, in order for your scheme to happen you need a warrant which includes probable cause. Not registering isn't PC of any type.

The Police have no authority to do random inspections period.

There isn't a data base for firearms sold out of state, or moved out of state. There is absolutely zero way for Cal DOJ to know or find out this information.

Originally Posted by njineermike

If he's convicted, then the law is overturned, is his conviction also immediately overturned?

I'm asking because that's what concerns me. If I'm wrong, I dont mind be educated on the subject.

There is no such law, and there is no way it can be enacted.

No law means no arrests.

I know you feel strongly about this issue. I too think the Ca. laws are stupid, and more than concerning. However worrying about something which isn't possible isn't a good idea.

[xrMike]

Originally Posted by Shumba

Also a reminder that this forum is absolutely watched by various LEO organizations.


A couple of years ago I had a personal visit from an LE Agency outside of my area as a direct result from a post I had on Calguns. They had a legit reason to contact me and everything was worked out/cleared up. But they did show up and had printed out copies of my post from Calguns.

Originally Posted by Shumba

Quick follow-up. Don't really want to go through the long story (it was not a huge deal and it was not a gun/gun violation), but just want to remind people that this is a public forum and LE agencies do keep an eye on it.


My situation occurred about 5 years ago and it was a LE agency monitoring CGN that lead to investigators contacting me (not an investigation that caused them to look at CGN). They identified me through CGN. They had a legit reason to contact me and the contact/meeting was very cordial. Just investigators doing their job. They did bring print outs of screenshots from CGN. They knew my background before they arrived and the way it was handled (very professional and very cordial) may have been influenced by them knowing ahead of time (through their investigation) that I am Reserve LEO.

In order to do this, they'd have to request your IP address from Kestryll, and then asked your service provider to give up your identity. A warrant may have been required in both instances.

It would be interesting to know if Kestryll willingly gave up your IP address without a warrant... ???

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by xrMike

In order to do this, they'd have to request your IP address from Kestryll, and then asked your service provider to give up your identity. A warrant may have been required in both instances.

It would be interesting to know if Kestryll willingly gave up your IP address without a warrant... ???

I believe one of the profile options reveals your email address.
Often easy enough to track, particularly us old-timers who often established and kept ID's that incorporated our real name. Hell, I've used my full real name as usernames on a couple of forums.

[Shumba]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

I believe one of the profile options reveals your email address.
Often easy enough to track, particularly us old-timers who often established and kept ID's that incorporated our real name. Hell, I've used my full real name as usernames on a couple of forums.

Correct!

I was surprisingly easy to find and Identify through my info on Calguns. My email address is my name. They obviously looked at all my CGN posts (an easy option if you click on anyone's user name). I had some classified ads in the For Sale forum at the time with my email and possibly my phone number. From there, it is really easy for a detective to find a lot of info on you.

http://tlo.org/

https://ociac.ca.gov/

https://www.jric.org/


The intent of my original post was just to remind fellow Calgunners that this website and all of your posts are public information.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by Shumba

Correct!

I was surprisingly easy to find and Identify through my info on Calguns. My email address is my name. They obviously looked at all my CGN posts (an easy option if you click on anyone's user name). I had some classified ads in the For Sale forum at the time with my email and possibly my phone number. From there, it is really easy for a detective to find a lot of info on you.

http://tlo.org/

https://ociac.ca.gov/

https://www.jric.org/


The intent of my original post was just to remind fellow Calgunners that this website and all of your posts are public information.

Might seem normal and no biggie to you but it makes my skin crawl, both the story you told and these links to these meta government investigation agencies.

Vast information networks and strange investigations no one voted for and barely understood publicly. It's so 1984 I don't know what to say. Is this constitutional in your opinion?

For all those that challenge me about what's actually at stake in the information age, especially the anti-reg crowd insisting the government (and private parities) don't know you then I'll give you exhibits A, B, and C in Shumba's posts.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Might seem normal and no biggie to you but it makes my skin crawl, both the story you told and these links to these meta government investigation agencies.

Vast information networks and strange investigations no one voted for and barely understood publicly. It's so 1984 I don't know what to say. Is this constitutional in your opinion?

For all those that challenge me about what's actually at stake in the information age, especially the anti-reg crowd insisting the government (and private parities) don't know you then I'll give you exhibits A, B, and C in Shumba's posts.

Which is where my paranoia originates from.

[lordmorgul]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Might seem normal and no biggie to you but it makes my skin crawl

Yeah me too, but you have to use that itchy “this could be bad” feeling to your advantage, fear is a useful self preservation mechanism. There is a great book about it, “The Gift of Fear”. We need to respond to fear with appropriate action rather than ignore it or have no fear.

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

For all those that challenge me about what's actually at stake in the information age, especially the anti-reg crowd insisting the government (and private parities) don't know you then I'll give you exhibits A, B, and C in Shumba's posts.

Anything posted online is a crumb trail and not that hard to follow with the right tools. We can be either a “real” security and obscurity nut with zero online presence, or a faker who doesn’t understand their continually eroding security and risk with every post, or simply a realist who assumes nothing posted or searched online is private at all.




Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, Calguns.net contributor, CGF / SAF / CRPA / FPC / USCCA member