Shipping Rifles from California to Out-of-State Buyers

[ikeo1]

How special, you or one of your minions decided to delete a post of mind. Quite telling.

It's the one where you called someone elses post a stupid response, while telling me to delete a post that starts with "I respectfully disagree.."

The audacity of me! I also removed our interaction back n forth. You seem to think you're special. IMHO what you think he's lying about, to other people it will read as "i respectfully disagree, here's why ... " Then replying "You are a liar"

The reason I asked, was to see what you were talking about, I read each post to try to understand what you are taking so personally.

It is a bit ironic that you wanted to request a deletion of someone else's post but get upset with your own post. I'm actually saying you have your point, but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone.

 

[gorgothmog]

GunBroker, USPS for rifle shipping from private resident to FFL. Super easy. Fully insured.

 

[kemasa]

It's the one where you called someone elses post a stupid response, while telling me to delete a post that starts with "I respectfully disagree.."

The audacity of me! I also removed our interaction back n forth. You seem to think you're special. IMHO what you think he's lying about, to other people it will read as "i respectfully disagree, here's why ... " Then replying "You are a liar"

The reason I asked, was to see what you were talking about, I read each post to try to understand what you are taking so personally.

It is a bit ironic that you wanted to request a deletion of someone else's post but get upset with your own post. I'm actually saying you have your point, but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone.

It was in fact a stupid response, wasn't it?

So what if it starts with "I respectfully disagree"? That can be used to mask other things?

You like to claim what others think, don't you? I respectfully disagree with such a claim.

I pointed out the false statements, which you said you would delete, yet you didn't. What does that say? It says that you wouldn't do what you said you would do. The excuses were absurd. He falsely claims that I was resorting to childish insults and then you delete it saying there were no childish insults, confirming that it was in fact a lie, yet you now refuse to delete the lie. Amazing.

Another false claim. You are the one who doesn't want to listen. Who is the one to said to request the deletion of someone's post? YOU!!! You say that I have a point while at the same time denying he is lying after admitting that he was lying? Really? Yes, really.

 

[ikeo1]

It was in fact a stupid response, wasn't it?

So what if it starts with "I respectfully disagree"? That can be used to mask other things?

You like to claim what others think, don't you? I respectfully disagree with such a claim.

I pointed out the false statements, which you said you would delete, yet you didn't. What does that say? It says that you wouldn't do what you said you would do. The excuses were absurd. He falsely claims that I was resorting to childish insults and then you delete it saying there were no childish insults, confirming that it was in fact a lie, yet you now refuse to delete the lie. Amazing.

Another false claim. You are the one who doesn't want to listen. Who is the one to said to request the deletion of someone's post? YOU!!! You say that I have a point while at the same time denying he is lying after admitting that he was lying? Really? Yes, really.

did you not read my reply? That has your answer. I removed some and not others, including my own comments

You took a response that disagrees with you as a false claim. I don’t see a problem with his comment but I do with yours. I don’t know either of you so why do you think I don’t see anything wrong with him but I have a problem with your comments? I’d like to know

 

[kemasa]

did you not read my reply? That has your answer. I removed some and not others, including my own comments

You took a response that disagrees with you as a false claim. I don’t see a problem with his comment but I do with yours. I don’t know either of you so why do you think I don’t see anything wrong with him but I have a problem with your comments? I’d like to know

No, I took a response which made false claims about me. I don't really care if there is a disagreement, as long as it is based in reality, which many of the comments are not.

That is funny, you want me to try to explain to you why you are doing what you are doing which makes no sense to me? Really? I am just pointing out what you are doing. You tell me to report the posts so that you can delete them, then when I do you complain about that, something that I was only doing because you told me to, then to add to that your excuse was that what I pointed out didn't exist, yeah, because it was his lie, yet you let the lie remain. Seems like you are the one who should be explaining, but because you are in charge, you don't have to and no one can force you to, but you think that others should explain your actions to you.

 

[ikeo1]

you don't have to and no one can force you to, but you think that others should explain your actions to you.

I’m just asking you why you think I’m singling you out and not anyone else.

I reviewed the report and don’t see the lie, but removed the other report you made. 1/2.

I’m looking to see if you understand my point or just blocking everything I’m saying. I already explained to you I didn’t see a problem and that multiple perspectives is preferred without calling people liars. I wonder if you read my explanation or you just want me to do what you say? I’m trying to be reasonable with you since my focus is on 50k and honestly I’d rather have a celebration.

 

[kemasa]

I’m just asking you why you think I’m singling you out and not anyone else.

I reviewed the report and don’t see the lie, but removed the other report you made. 1/2.

I’m looking to see if you understand my point or just blocking everything I’m saying. I already explained to you I didn’t see a problem and that multiple perspectives is preferred without calling people liars. I wonder if you read my explanation or you just want me to do what you say? I’m trying to be reasonable with you since my focus is on 50k and honestly I’d rather have a celebration.

That is oh so funny. I am not going to repeat myself.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

How so absurd. Either I understand your point or I block you? Really? That implies that it is impossible for you to be wrong. Got it. That is VERY clear. I suspect that then you will use that to justify what you do.

What part of don't make false claims about people if you don't want to be called a liar don't you understand? You actively ignore this and claim that liars shouldn't be called liars. The question is why. I can't answer that, only you can, but it seems that you can't answer that either.

No, you are not trying to be reasonable, you are dancing. Explain why you told me to report the posts then complained that I did exactly what you said and why you admitted that what I said was correct, but then ignored it.

 

[ikeo1]

No, you are not trying to be reasonable, you are dancing. Explain why you told me to report the posts then complained that I did exactly what you said and why you admitted that what I said was correct, but then ignored it.

I reviewed the report and don’t see the lie, but removed the other report you made. 1/2.

The reason I asked, was to see what you were talking about, I read each post to try to understand what you are taking so personally.

I've state this multiple times across several posts...

How so absurd. Either I understand your point or I block you? Really?

I'm asking if you understand my explanation, because you keep asking me to explain. It seems like its not registering.

 

[treelogger]

May I request something from our moderators / administrators? Comb through this thread, and remove all the obviously incorrect posts. That would be pretty much anything Kemasa posted, and probably a few more. Why? Because people search the internet, find content here, think that it is the answer to a legal question. And letting bad advice stay here is really a disservice to the community at large.

By the way, a lot of the logic also applies to people who say "concealed is concealed" and "I didn't get caught last time", but that gets harder (borderline impossible) to enforce.

 

[kemasa]

I've state this multiple times across several posts...


I'm asking if you understand my explanation, because you keep asking me to explain. It seems like its not registering.

Word of the day: Projection.

Please show me where the childish insults are, oh, wait, you said that there wasn't any, which means that his claim of those are false, aka a lie, yet then you claim it isn't. Why don't you get that? I don't know, I can't explain it.

You are the one asking me to explain why you are doing what you are doing. You are refusing to understand a simple point as you block my response. You are not actually explaining anything.

Quite clearly you won't understand that it is reasonable to call someone a liar when they lie.

Sorry that you are unable to understand why I might not like a person lying about what I said or think and why I don't like such things.

 

[kemasa]

May I request something from our moderators / administrators? Comb through this thread, and remove all the obviously incorrect posts. That would be pretty much anything Kemasa posted, and probably a few more. Why? Because people search the internet, find content here, think that it is the answer to a legal question. And letting bad advice stay here is really a disservice to the community at large.

By the way, a lot of the logic also applies to people who say "concealed is concealed" and "I didn't get caught last time", but that gets harder (borderline impossible) to enforce.

Sorry you don't understand reality. What exactly did I say that was wrong? I can point out what others have said that is wrong, such the example of the brother taking a RAW that has been taken apart and putting it in his trunk and falsely claiming that there is nothing illegal about that. Yes, you are correct that it is bad to allow bad advice to stay up, but I am not the one giving false advice.

 

[RickD427]

Sorry you don't understand reality. What exactly did I say that was wrong? I can point out what others have said that is wrong, such the example of the brother taking a RAW that has been taken apart and putting it in his trunk and falsely claiming that there is nothing illegal about that. Yes, you are correct that it is bad to allow bad advice to stay up, but I am not the one giving false advice.

What statute do you believe was violated in my example of my brother having my disassembled (and therefore not an Assault Weapon) RAW in his possession?

Please note that Penal Code section 27880 specifically permits the loan of a firearm (with conditions) to a sibling. But also note that the example was not formulated to illustrate the transfer of a firearm, it was for the purpose of illustrating that the AW possession statute (PC 30605) does not apply to a RAW that is not presently configured as an AW.

 

[AR15barrels]

What statute do you believe was violated in my example of my brother having my disassembled (and therefore not an Assault Weapon) RAW in his possession?

It's telling that he can not reference a chargeable PC to support his statements that something is illegal.
He also does not seem to understand that some PC is chargeable and other is restrictive on what specific PC can be charged.

PC30945 is a list of protected uses of a permitted assault weapon.
PC30945 therefore lists the conditions that a possessor of a permitted assault weapon can not be charged with 30605.

I don't think he understands that we are all free to do things that are not chargeable because liberty is the absence of a chargeable penal code.

 

[treelogger]

So how can removing a bullet button from a registered assault weapon make a different unregistered assault weapon

Because that's what CA DoJ's lawyers said, and wrote into the regulation, which was passed using the legal process. Since the regulation has not been successfully challenged in court or in an administrative process, it remains in force.

But you have to understand the logic behind what it says in the regulation. Simply quoting a single sentence and taking it out of context will lead to the wrong conclusion.

To begin with, as we've been discussing for several pages in this thread (and some people are refusing to understand): there is a distinction between an AW = assault weapon (defined as something that has transportation / possession / mailing / manufacturing restrictions) and a RAW = registered assault weapon (defined as something that has a valid registration for that weapon with that make/model/serial, and perhaps in that configuration). Sometimes an AW is not a RAW (and that is usually quite illegal). Sometimes a RAW is not an AW.

The logic behind the DoJ's regulation has been well known for a long time, and we were warned about it before the DoJ opened the extra registration period for BBRAWs in about 2017. Remember, most people (at least on the usually clueless, anti-government and overly optimistic Calguns forum) thought "once registered as a RAW, I can take the bullet button off". And user Flavio kept warning us: "no, you won't be able to, read the law carefully". Well, Flavio has more brains than the "manager of lawyers" and his minions.

The logic behind that very abbreviated statement is this: To register a lower receiver under the BBRAW registration, it has to have a bullet button. Only if registered properly does it become exempt from the AW (not RAW!) restrictions against an attachable magazine (and I deliberately did not say detachable here). The registration is only valid for that weapon (make/model/serial) in that configuration. If the BB is missing, the registration could not have been performed in the first place, and is not valid. Putting the BB back on makes the registration valid again. The logic behind the (admittedly over abbreviated) statement "it is a different AW" is: the registration is only valid IF AND WHEN the BB is in place, otherwise it is a DIFFERENTLY CONFIGURED weapon.

They can't have it both ways.

They are not. The definition of what constitutes a weapon, an AW, a RAW, and a BBRAW are complex. The fact that for an untrained and unskilled amateur brain they seem to overlap or contradict each other doesn't change the law.

As an example, I have sitting next to me on my desk a "California Practice Guide" for an area of law I'm not familiar with, namely collections. The section on what constitutes a "homestead exemption" is about 30 pages long, and distinguishes between homestead exemption, dwelling exemption, and declared homestead exemption. And that's just for California law; if we add federal bankruptcy law (for which the manual is upstairs), it gets probably twice as complicated. And all these laws exist for good reason. Just like people joke that OSHA regulations were written in blood, laws were written with a goal in mind. You might not like the goal (I don't like that the opposing side is going to keep one of their houses and we'll get less money out of it), but our society has decided that these goals are worthy of being written into law. Amateurs think "they can't just foreclose on my home", and they're not completely wrong ... but the details are very complex, and often give a different answer. It's only crazy people like SovCits who take one buzzword (like "homestead exemption") from the text of the law and think that works like a magic incantation.

 

[RickD427]

It's telling that he can not reference a chargeable PC to support his statements that something is illegal.
He also does not seem to understand that some PC is chargeable and other is restrictive on what specific PC can be charged.

PC30945 is a list of protected uses of a permitted assault weapon.
PC30945 therefore lists the conditions that a possessor of a permitted assault weapon can not be charged with 30605.

I don't think he understands that we are all free to do things that are not chargeable because liberty is the absence of a chargeable penal code.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond the Mr. Kemasa. I hate to drag a threat out once it has passed the point of being productive, and this one (IMHO) has found that point.

But it's also really important to me not to let bad information stand unchallenged. Some folks do pay attention to what is posted here, and I don't want to see anyone get into trouble as a result of what they find posted here.

I spent close to 40 years as an LEO and have put together more criminal cases than I care to remember. I also (both resulting from lapses in judgment) moved into supervision and management. All of that taught me that you have to know the law, and you have to be adept at the application of the law to objective. You can't simply assert what you think the law says and work from a basis of common sense and intuition. California's firearms statutes (and the case law flowing from them) are anything but intuitive, and often are contrary to common sense (read some of Judge Van Dyke's opinions on this subject).

In an effort to bring some clarity to our discussion, I've repeatedly requested Mr. Kemasa to cite the sources of law that would support his views, but to date he has not done so.

 

[RickD427]

Because that's what CA DoJ's lawyers said, and wrote into the regulation, which was passed using the legal process. Since the regulation has not been successfully challenged in court or in an administrative process, it remains in force.

But you have to understand the logic behind what it says in the regulation. Simply quoting a single sentence and taking it out of context will lead to the wrong conclusion.

To begin with, as we've been discussing for several pages in this thread (and some people are refusing to understand): there is a distinction between an AW = assault weapon (defined as something that has transportation / possession / mailing / manufacturing restrictions) and a RAW = registered assault weapon (defined as something that has a valid registration for that weapon with that make/model/serial, and perhaps in that configuration). Sometimes an AW is not a RAW (and that is usually quite illegal). Sometimes a RAW is not an AW.

The logic behind the DoJ's regulation has been well known for a long time, and we were warned about it before the DoJ opened the extra registration period for BBRAWs in about 2017. Remember, most people (at least on the usually clueless, anti-government and overly optimistic Calguns forum) thought "once registered as a RAW, I can take the bullet button off". And user Flavio kept warning us: "no, you won't be able to, read the law carefully". Well, Flavio has more brains than the "manager of lawyers" and his minions.

The logic behind that very abbreviated statement is this: To register a lower receiver under the BBRAW registration, it has to have a bullet button. Only if registered properly does it become exempt from the AW (not RAW!) restrictions against an attachable magazine (and I deliberately did not say detachable here). The registration is only valid for that weapon (make/model/serial) in that configuration. If the BB is missing, the registration could not have been performed in the first place, and is not valid. Putting the BB back on makes the registration valid again. The logic behind the (admittedly over abbreviated) statement "it is a different AW" is: the registration is only valid IF AND WHEN the BB is in place, otherwise it is a DIFFERENTLY CONFIGURED weapon.

Excellent summary. I'd also add that the reasoning that DOJ appears to have used in drafting 11CCR5477(a) and that the Legislature used in drafting AB 857 appears to have been adopted from the Fourth Circuit's decision in Broughman v Carver. The short version is that Broughman was an FFL dealer who purchased barreled receivers (already manufactured and bearing manufacturer's marking and serial numbers). He then added stocks and features to his customer's specifications, and then transferred to firearm to his customers. The BATF took the position that he was "Manufacturing" firearms and that he needed a Manufacturer's FFL to conduct his business. The Fourth Circuit held for the BATF. The resulting decision supports the view that a "new" firearm can be "Manufactured" from an existing firearm. The Broughman decision carefully noted that minor changes to a weapon would not result in the "Manufacturing" of a new firearm. The dicta of the Broughman decision also focused on the fact that Broughman was preparing firearms for their "first use" as firearms.

 

[kemasa]

What statute do you believe was violated in my example of my brother having my disassembled (and therefore not an Assault Weapon) RAW in his possession?

Please note that Penal Code section 27880 specifically permits the loan of a firearm (with conditions) to a sibling. But also note that the example was not formulated to illustrate the transfer of a firearm, it was for the purpose of illustrating that the AW possession statute (PC 30605) does not apply to a RAW that is not presently configured as an AW.

You should consult an attorney specializing in firearms to determine all the possible charges, but a search indicates 30600, 30605, 30945, as well there is aspect of constructive possession. Remember is is REGISTERED as an assault weapon.

You want to play games because you think that you know all the laws just because you are/were an officer, but you are taking a risk by giving legal advice in claiming that what CAN be done without risk of criminal charges.

 

[kemasa]

It's telling that he can not reference a chargeable PC to support his statements that something is illegal.
He also does not seem to understand that some PC is chargeable and other is restrictive on what specific PC can be charged.

PC30945 is a list of protected uses of a permitted assault weapon.
PC30945 therefore lists the conditions that a possessor of a permitted assault weapon can not be charged with 30605.

I don't think he understands that we are all free to do things that are not chargeable because liberty is the absence of a chargeable penal code.

Nice assumptions. You should contact an attorney who specializes in firearms law to determine all of the laws instead of just believing what a police officer claims as there are numerous examples of police being very wrong when it comes to the law.

I don't think you understand and you have NO idea as to what I understand. You seem to be clueless as to how complicated the laws are. There are a lot of aspects which you seem to choose to ignore for unknown reasons. You also seem to be more than willing to promote people doing things which may get them into legal trouble, which is especially a problem as you are not an attorney.

 

[RickD427]

You should consult an attorney specializing in firearms to determine all the possible charges, but a search indicates 30600, 30605, 30945, as well there is aspect of constructive possession. Remember is is REGISTERED as an assault weapon.

You want to play games because you think that you know all the laws just because you are/were an officer, but you are taking a risk by giving legal advice in claiming that what CAN be done without risk of criminal charges.

California's Assault Weapon's statute does not include a "Constructive Possession" clause, even though the Orange County D.A. did secure a conviction, later upheld in a published decision for "Attempted Possession of an AW" in People v Nguyen.

Penal Code sections 30600 and 30605 only apply to "Assault Weapons" They have no application to a Registered Assault Weapon that is not currently configured as an Assault Weapon. Read the elements of both statutes. They make absolutely no provision for "Registered" Assault Weapons.

Why are you referencing PC 30945? It's not a chargeable violation.

You made continual references to a weapon being registered as an Assault Weapon, but have consistently failed to cite any statutes giving relevance to the issue. How long are you going to dodge the challenge to provide any statutory, or published case law, references to support your positions?

 

[kemasa]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond the Mr. Kemasa. I hate to drag a threat out once it has passed the point of being productive, and this one (IMHO) has found that point.

But it's also really important to me not to let bad information stand unchallenged. Some folks do pay attention to what is posted here, and I don't want to see anyone get into trouble as a result of what they find posted here.

I spent close to 40 years as an LEO and have put together more criminal cases than I care to remember. I also (both resulting from lapses in judgment) moved into supervision and management. All of that taught me that you have to know the law, and you have to be adept at the application of the law to objective. You can't simply assert what you think the law says and work from a basis of common sense and intuition. California's firearms statutes (and the case law flowing from them) are anything but intuitive, and often are contrary to common sense (read some of Judge Van Dyke's opinions on this subject).

In an effort to bring some clarity to our discussion, I've repeatedly requested Mr. Kemasa to cite the sources of law that would support his views, but to date he has not done so.

Yet you, as a non-attorney, claim that it is perfectly legal to take apart YOUR RAW and give it to your brother to store in his trunk. You claim your basis is as an officer, NOT as an attorney.

You say "You can't simply assert what you think the law says and work from a basis of common sense and intuition.", yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

You are giving legal advice as a non-attorney and claiming things that are legal which YOU don't provide ANY proof of. Provide proof that what you claim is legal is in fact legal. Get an attorney or better yet a judge to give an opinion on that, rather than telling people things are legal which you really don't know. You are likely to get people in legal trouble when you claim without a real legal basis that taking apart a RAW means that you can do anything that you want with it. That is a bold claim from a non-attorney. The problem is that some people might read what you say and blindly follow it and you will take NO responsibility for your words.