The NRA is mentioned is the second and third articles. Notice the first doesn't mention who is sponsoring the suit -- Can you say controlled media, children?
1st article: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit2.shtml
Suit seeks to block firearms ban: Owners may be charged unless they turn in or disable assault weapons
By Ramon Coronado Bee Staff Writer (Published Dec. 14, 1999)
A class-action lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court challenges potential prosecution of California assault weapons owners who registered their weapons during a grace period extending from March 1992 to July 1998.
Without the court's help, up to 2,000 assault weapon owners who registered during the six-year period face fines or prosecution if they don't relinquish, disable or transfer their firearms out of California.
The suit claims those gun owners will be penalized for following rules that have changed since former Attorney General Dan Lungren was replaced by Bill Lockyer.
"This is about licenses which these people were given and now the new attorney general wants to take away," said Chuck Michel, a San Pedro attorney who filed the suit Friday.
The dispute has its roots in a controversial 1989 law that banned numerous assault weapons but allowed existing owners to keep them if they registered with the state by 1991, a deadline that later was extended to March 1992.
Once the deadline expired, Lungren provided an indefinite grace period to owners who subsequently stepped forward and registered.
That grace period ended in 1998, when a San Francisco judge ruled that it should not have been offered, said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for the attorney general's office.
"The deadline is a deadline, and a judge told us that what Dan Lungren did was illegal," Barankin said.
The late registrants have been informed by Lockyer that they can't keep their weapons in California beyond Dec. 31 -- unless the firearms are inoperable. Their existing registrations will be null and void.
The class-action lawsuit, which named Lockyer as a defendant, challenges the crackdown and claims the owners are being penalized for following rules that changed on them.
The affected owners, who had their guns before the bill's passage in 1989, were "induced" by assurances from Lungren that they had a "second chance" to register without fear of prosecution, Michel said.
Most of those failing to register on time did so out of confusion over the law rather than willful defiance, the suit said.
Michel seeks to have a judge find that the late registrants are in compliance with the weapons law and should therefore be allowed to retain their firearms.
Judge Joe S. Gray has scheduled a Jan. 28 hearing on the class-action suit, Michel said.
The state Department of Justice has estimated that there are about 300,000 assault weapons in California, 80 percent of them still unregistered, according to the suit.
Parts of the 1989 assault weapons law were declared unconstitutional by a state appeals court in Sacramento and have been appealed to the California Supreme Court.
That appeal may be moot, however, because the 1989 assault weapons ban was amended by the state Legislature through a bill signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis this summer.
The new legislation prohibits "copycat" weapons that were renamed or modified to skirt the original 1989 law, which listed specific models covered by the statewide ban.
As of Jan. 1, people already owning guns that fall under the new definition will be given a one-year grace period to register their weapons with the state.
That grace period does not affect the late registrants in the class-action suit, Michel said.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under Fair Use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
I clicked on this link and got --http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit.shtml
2nd article:
LAWSUIT AGAINST "ASSAULT WEAPON" CONFISCATION PROGRAM
TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP
Port Of Los Angeles
407 N. Harbor Blvd.
San Pedro, CA 90731
The NRA has retained this firm to fight the Cal DOJ's attempt to force post 3/31/92 AW registrants to surrender their firearms. We are proceeding on several fronts, and expect to file for an injunction within the next 14 days. There were approximately 16,000 guns registered by 10,000 people after the 3/31/92 date. The DOJ has determined that only about 1550 of those guns were actually "AWs."
If you receive a letter from the DOJ regarding a late AW registration (after 3/31/92) being invalid, please forward a copy of that letter, along with all other correspondence you have had with the DOJ (i.e., ALL registration submissions, all DOJ letters, etc.) and the receipts for the firearms, along with the first couple pages of the owners manual (if you have it), and your contact information so we can get a hold of you. If you registered the gun to have a criminal charge for possessing it reduced, send info on the case. If you have unique circumstances (like you tried to register the gun before 3/31/92 but they wouldn't take it, then you tried again after 3/31/92, and they did) let us know about that too.
We will file a lawsuit on your behalf. You will not be charged fees. Other explanatory information will be sent to you when we receive your information.
If you believe the DOJ letter was sent in error, i .e., you registered on time or its not on the AW list, or you are not sure if its really an AW (lots of people registered simply to be cautious), then call the DOJ Firearms program and ask them what to do. Document their response and get the name of the person you talk to and forward that info to us as well. You should consider whether to follow up with a letter to DOJ confirming the conversation. If possible, get their advice in writing.
IN THE MEANTIME, everyone please remember: The deadline for registering, selling to a licensed AW dealer (a regular FFL CANNOT buy or sell AWS), rendering the gun permanently inoperable, or taking it out of the State is 12/31/99.
DO NOT ASSUME THAT BECAUSE A LAWSUIT IS GOING TO BE FILED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT. UNLESS YOU HEAR OTHERWISE, ASSUME THAT IF YOU HAVE THE RIFLE AFTER 12/31/99 YOU MAY BE PROSECUTED. (For that matter, a zealous DA could prosecute you now -- since the DOJ says they never had authority to register guns after 3.31.92 in the first place.) UNLESS YOU HEAR ABOUT A COURT ORDER AFFECTING THIS ISSUE, DO WHAT THE LETTER SAYS!
Questions from owners, dealers, instructors, and anyone else should be directed to the DOJ Firearms Program at (916) 227-3703. If you talk to DOJ, we'd like to hear what advice they are giving out. Some possible questions include: Can I be prosecuted right now? Can I weld the magazine into my SKS and make it "non-detachable" so its no longer an AW? How do I know if this is really an AW? Where are the state licensed AW dealers in my area? Are you going to pay me for this? I want to contest this, aren't I entitled to an administrative due process hearing?
Please do not call this office -- the volume of calls has been overwhelming. Mail us the materials and you'll hear from us. Email is okay, and faxes to (310) 548-4813 are okay too.
Sincerely,
Chuck Michel
3rd article: (somewhat dated, but this is the first I have heard about it) -- http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html
Update -- November 11, 1999 -- Update
From: Chuck Michel, Chief NRA Lawyer for California
We are preparing a lawsuit against the Cal. DOJ on behalf of a class of people who recently had their "assault weapon" registrations invalidated by Cal. DOJ and who now face potential felony prosecution.
A subset of this class is people who were actually charged with a felony, then, pursuant to the statute, registered their firearm, had the felony charge reduced to an infraction, and got their gun back. These people also got a letter from DOJ saying their registration was invalid and instructing them to turn in their firearm to law enforcement or face prosecution (again).
We need people from that subclass to support an argument to challenge the registration revocation.
If you know of someone like this, please refer them to this office. We will handle their case pro bono.
Chuck Michel
TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP
Port of Los Angeles
407 N. Harbor Blvd.
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-3703
Fax (310) 548-4813
Thanks to radio personality/author Geoff Metcalf of KSFO 560 AM San Francisco
for mirroring this page and spreading the word!
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
1st article: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit2.shtml
Suit seeks to block firearms ban: Owners may be charged unless they turn in or disable assault weapons
By Ramon Coronado Bee Staff Writer (Published Dec. 14, 1999)
A class-action lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court challenges potential prosecution of California assault weapons owners who registered their weapons during a grace period extending from March 1992 to July 1998.
Without the court's help, up to 2,000 assault weapon owners who registered during the six-year period face fines or prosecution if they don't relinquish, disable or transfer their firearms out of California.
The suit claims those gun owners will be penalized for following rules that have changed since former Attorney General Dan Lungren was replaced by Bill Lockyer.
"This is about licenses which these people were given and now the new attorney general wants to take away," said Chuck Michel, a San Pedro attorney who filed the suit Friday.
The dispute has its roots in a controversial 1989 law that banned numerous assault weapons but allowed existing owners to keep them if they registered with the state by 1991, a deadline that later was extended to March 1992.
Once the deadline expired, Lungren provided an indefinite grace period to owners who subsequently stepped forward and registered.
That grace period ended in 1998, when a San Francisco judge ruled that it should not have been offered, said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for the attorney general's office.
"The deadline is a deadline, and a judge told us that what Dan Lungren did was illegal," Barankin said.
The late registrants have been informed by Lockyer that they can't keep their weapons in California beyond Dec. 31 -- unless the firearms are inoperable. Their existing registrations will be null and void.
The class-action lawsuit, which named Lockyer as a defendant, challenges the crackdown and claims the owners are being penalized for following rules that changed on them.
The affected owners, who had their guns before the bill's passage in 1989, were "induced" by assurances from Lungren that they had a "second chance" to register without fear of prosecution, Michel said.
Most of those failing to register on time did so out of confusion over the law rather than willful defiance, the suit said.
Michel seeks to have a judge find that the late registrants are in compliance with the weapons law and should therefore be allowed to retain their firearms.
Judge Joe S. Gray has scheduled a Jan. 28 hearing on the class-action suit, Michel said.
The state Department of Justice has estimated that there are about 300,000 assault weapons in California, 80 percent of them still unregistered, according to the suit.
Parts of the 1989 assault weapons law were declared unconstitutional by a state appeals court in Sacramento and have been appealed to the California Supreme Court.
That appeal may be moot, however, because the 1989 assault weapons ban was amended by the state Legislature through a bill signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis this summer.
The new legislation prohibits "copycat" weapons that were renamed or modified to skirt the original 1989 law, which listed specific models covered by the statewide ban.
As of Jan. 1, people already owning guns that fall under the new definition will be given a one-year grace period to register their weapons with the state.
That grace period does not affect the late registrants in the class-action suit, Michel said.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under Fair Use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
I clicked on this link and got --http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit.shtml
2nd article:
LAWSUIT AGAINST "ASSAULT WEAPON" CONFISCATION PROGRAM
TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP
Port Of Los Angeles
407 N. Harbor Blvd.
San Pedro, CA 90731
The NRA has retained this firm to fight the Cal DOJ's attempt to force post 3/31/92 AW registrants to surrender their firearms. We are proceeding on several fronts, and expect to file for an injunction within the next 14 days. There were approximately 16,000 guns registered by 10,000 people after the 3/31/92 date. The DOJ has determined that only about 1550 of those guns were actually "AWs."
If you receive a letter from the DOJ regarding a late AW registration (after 3/31/92) being invalid, please forward a copy of that letter, along with all other correspondence you have had with the DOJ (i.e., ALL registration submissions, all DOJ letters, etc.) and the receipts for the firearms, along with the first couple pages of the owners manual (if you have it), and your contact information so we can get a hold of you. If you registered the gun to have a criminal charge for possessing it reduced, send info on the case. If you have unique circumstances (like you tried to register the gun before 3/31/92 but they wouldn't take it, then you tried again after 3/31/92, and they did) let us know about that too.
We will file a lawsuit on your behalf. You will not be charged fees. Other explanatory information will be sent to you when we receive your information.
If you believe the DOJ letter was sent in error, i .e., you registered on time or its not on the AW list, or you are not sure if its really an AW (lots of people registered simply to be cautious), then call the DOJ Firearms program and ask them what to do. Document their response and get the name of the person you talk to and forward that info to us as well. You should consider whether to follow up with a letter to DOJ confirming the conversation. If possible, get their advice in writing.
IN THE MEANTIME, everyone please remember: The deadline for registering, selling to a licensed AW dealer (a regular FFL CANNOT buy or sell AWS), rendering the gun permanently inoperable, or taking it out of the State is 12/31/99.
DO NOT ASSUME THAT BECAUSE A LAWSUIT IS GOING TO BE FILED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT. UNLESS YOU HEAR OTHERWISE, ASSUME THAT IF YOU HAVE THE RIFLE AFTER 12/31/99 YOU MAY BE PROSECUTED. (For that matter, a zealous DA could prosecute you now -- since the DOJ says they never had authority to register guns after 3.31.92 in the first place.) UNLESS YOU HEAR ABOUT A COURT ORDER AFFECTING THIS ISSUE, DO WHAT THE LETTER SAYS!
Questions from owners, dealers, instructors, and anyone else should be directed to the DOJ Firearms Program at (916) 227-3703. If you talk to DOJ, we'd like to hear what advice they are giving out. Some possible questions include: Can I be prosecuted right now? Can I weld the magazine into my SKS and make it "non-detachable" so its no longer an AW? How do I know if this is really an AW? Where are the state licensed AW dealers in my area? Are you going to pay me for this? I want to contest this, aren't I entitled to an administrative due process hearing?
Please do not call this office -- the volume of calls has been overwhelming. Mail us the materials and you'll hear from us. Email is okay, and faxes to (310) 548-4813 are okay too.
Sincerely,
Chuck Michel
3rd article: (somewhat dated, but this is the first I have heard about it) -- http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html
Update -- November 11, 1999 -- Update
From: Chuck Michel, Chief NRA Lawyer for California
We are preparing a lawsuit against the Cal. DOJ on behalf of a class of people who recently had their "assault weapon" registrations invalidated by Cal. DOJ and who now face potential felony prosecution.
A subset of this class is people who were actually charged with a felony, then, pursuant to the statute, registered their firearm, had the felony charge reduced to an infraction, and got their gun back. These people also got a letter from DOJ saying their registration was invalid and instructing them to turn in their firearm to law enforcement or face prosecution (again).
We need people from that subclass to support an argument to challenge the registration revocation.
If you know of someone like this, please refer them to this office. We will handle their case pro bono.
Chuck Michel
TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP
Port of Los Angeles
407 N. Harbor Blvd.
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-3703
Fax (310) 548-4813
Thanks to radio personality/author Geoff Metcalf of KSFO 560 AM San Francisco
for mirroring this page and spreading the word!
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.