Subject: Class Action Lawsuit Filed December 10, 1999

Please post and and cross post as appropriate:

T R U T A N I C H . M I C H E L , L L P

Attorneys at Law

Port of Los Angeles Office

407 North Harbor Boulevard

San Pedro, California 90731-3356

Telephone: (310) 548-0410 . Fax: (310) 548-4813

December 22, 1999

Of Counsel:

Don B. Kates,

San Francisco, CA

Mark K. Benenson

New York, N.Y.

David T. Hardy

Tucson, AZ

RE: Class Action Lawsuit Filed December 10, 1999

Against California Department of Justice Regarding

“Assault Weapons” Registered After March 31, 1992.

Dear Class Member/Client:

On December 10, 1999, this firm filed a class action lawsuit on

behalf of the

entire class of all individuals who received letters from the

California

Department of Justice (DOJ) indicating that their “assault

weapon”

registration is invalid and that they must surrender their

firearm(s) to law

enforcement, destroy it, remove it from the state, or sell it out

of state

through specially a licensed “assault weapon” dealer. From

reviewing the

DOJ’s letters we know that many of the firearms registered are

not in fact

“assault weapons” and that many of the “late” registrations were

actually

submitted on time to the DOJ.

Your registration is the document (i.e., the “license”) that

grants you

permission to continue to legally own, use, and possess your

firearm in the

state of California. We believe that before such a “license” can

be revoked,

the U.S. and California Constitutions require that people be

given “due

process.” That due process includes notice of the intent to

revoke the

license and a hearing on whether or not a revocation is

appropriate. Our

lawsuit therefore alleges, among other things, that every

individual whose

registration is being revoked is entitled to a “due process”

hearing to

determine whether or not their registration was in fact received

late and

whether or not their firearm is in fact a “assault weapon.”

Although some of those who received these letters no doubt

possess firearms

that have been designated as an “assault weapon” under California

law, and

did register after March 31, 1992, we contend that those

individuals should

nonetheless be entitled to a hearing to determine those facts. We

believe

that at that hearing the DOJ should bear the burden of proving,

at a minimum,

that registration was received after March 31, 1992 and that the

gun was in

fact an “assault weapon.”

We have also asked the court to find that you should be able to

present other

arguments that might if accepted by the hearing officer or court

that would

entitle to you to retain your firearm. Those potential arguments

will vary

based on individual circumstances. Among the legal arguments that

could be

presented are that rifle owners reasonably relied on the DOJ’s

now apparent

misrepresentation that they could register their rifles at any

time (even

after March 31, 1992), although at the possible risk of an

infraction

citation and a fine up to $500.00. (The statute of limitation for

an

infraction citation however, expired one year after the firearm

was

registered.) Thus, we believe those late registrations should

still be valid.

We will be outlining other potential arguments in later

correspondence.

Our hearing on whether the DOJ must provide each letter recipient

with a “due

process” hearing is set in the Sacramento Superior Court Dept. 54

for

December 29, 1999. We hope the Judge will issue a ruling that

day, or at

least before the end of the year, but he is not obligated to. It

is therefore

imperative that you take precautionary measures to ensure that

you are not

subject to prosecution for possessing an “assault weapon” after

December 31,

1999. The easiest way to avoid problems and still challenge this

DOJ

revocation is to legally transport your firearm out of the state

before

December 31, 1999. This can be done on a temporary basis, but you

should be

sure that you are in compliance with whatever state laws may

apply in the

state where the firearm is going to be stored.

Most of our clients feel that this sort of a temporary transfer

of location

is preferable to destroying the firearm, surrendering it to law

enforcement,

or selling it to one of the very few licensed California “assault

weapon”

dealers that exist. (Assuming you could find such a dealer, the

price they

will pay you for a firearm with no doubt be far below the market

value, since

the demand for the firearms is in California is non-existent

since they can’t

be legally purchased here.) All of the options set forth in the

DOJ letter,

are available however, and should be carefully considered by

every individual

who received the DOJ letter.

On the 29th of December we will post a “Notice of Ruling” from

the judge (if

one is available) on the NRA Members’ Council website. The

website address is

www.nramemberscouncils.com. A copy of the pleadings that we filed

in this

case should be posted on that website shortly, should you desire

to review

the documents that we’ve submitted. If you are a member of this

class but are

not a member of both the NRA and the CRPA, you should seriously

considered

joining both Associations and making a donation to them to help

support this

legal effort. The NRA’s membership number is (800) 672-3888. The

CRPA’s

membership number is (714) 992-2776.

If we currently don’t have your e-mail address, please forward

that e-mail

address to us immediately, as it is the easiest way for us to

keep in touch

with you. If you receive this letter and have not previously

contacted this

office with your information and provided us with copies of

paperwork

associated with your firearm, please do so immediately and you

will become a

member of the class.

We’ve attempted to anticipate all your questions in this

correspondence. No

doubt there will be some questions that we have not anticipated.

Unfortunately, we are not staffed to handle the volume of

telephone calls on

this issue that we have been receiving. Unless your call is truly

urgent we

ask that you submit your questions in writing either via U.S.

mail or by fax.

We will incorporate those questions into a follow-up

correspondence to all

late registrants.

Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,

TRUTANICH . MICHEL, LLP

C.D. Michel

CDM/hv

Enc.