Shipping guns to California?


PDA






cottonmouth
June 3, 2010, 12:22 PM
I see a LOT of for sale post that say "no shipping to Cal." Is it that much of a hassel? I know there are guns that they do not allow because they are too EVIL, any info?

J.B.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shipping guns to California?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NavyLCDR
June 3, 2010, 12:35 PM
As of January 1, 2008, both in-state and out of state Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders will be required to obtain approval (e.g., a unique verification number) from the California Department of Justice prior to shipping firearms to any California FFL (Penal Code 12072).

That's why they won't ship to CA.

harmonic
June 3, 2010, 12:54 PM
It's just too much hassle to jump through **********'s hoops. But that market is so big, there will always be dealers who sell to kal.

The irony is that, when dealers boycot kal, they're doing exactly what the communist government of kalifornistan wants.

cottonmouth
June 3, 2010, 12:57 PM
Thanks guys!

J.B.

Bubbles
June 3, 2010, 01:24 PM
Yes, the CA law requiring FFL's outside of CA to get a permission slip when shipping a firearm to a CA FFL is one of the biggest reasons. FWIW we are registered in the CA DoJ system and ship what we legally can to CA since we'll support the gun-owning public as much as we can.

Note the caveat in the paragraph above: "ship what we legally can". It is a PITA keeping up with CA's regulations, so I'm not surprised many distributors elect to not ship to that market. The same can be said for NY, MA, etc.

daehawc
June 3, 2010, 02:05 PM
I disagree with the train of thought that says boycotting CA is "giving in" to the gun control activists. People only start to care when things effect them. If buy boycotting shipping to CA effects enough people and costs businesses money then hopefully it will motivate them to rise up and change their laws. In the end, its always about the money and you have to hit them in the pocket books to see some positive change.

docpadds
June 3, 2010, 05:09 PM
We happily ship to CA, we will even act as a middle man and take a gun and modify it to CA legal status before forwarding it. the CFLC number / permission slip (I like that term!) is easy enough to do and adds a few minutes effort.

Many dealers wont do firearms to there, some like Cheaper then Dirt will even refuse to ship stocks etc often.

dogtown tom
June 3, 2010, 07:17 PM
harmonic It's just too much hassle to jump through **********'s hoops.

Shipping to a California FFL adds all of ONE MINUTE to the time it requires me to process a shipment.

I log onto the CDOJ website, type in the California dealers code number, select the type of firearm being shipped and it spits out a transaction number that I enclose with the firearm. EASY. AS. PIE.

Victor1Echo
June 3, 2010, 08:01 PM
Dogtown is correct, and some people just do not want to do this--I suspect they are ignorant. BUt we in California lose out on perfectly legal purchases because they won't take the minute it takes.

Zoogster
June 3, 2010, 08:18 PM
Dogtown is correct, and some people just do not want to do this--I suspect they are ignorant. BUt we in California lose out on perfectly legal purchases because they won't take the minute it takes.

Well I am in California and stand to lose out. If I do I would look elsewhere.

However I entirely understand an FFL wishing to refuse business with California.
If you give into this extra and arbitrary demand beyond that of any other state, what is next?
What will be the next state to step up and add some extra restrictions on people outside of their state that wish to do business?
Will California upgrade its policy in the future to include more?

When you play along with new arbitrary rules, it gives the green light to everyone else to make new rules as well.
Over time that means the piling on of additional rules.
Instead of remaining a simple process it gets more complicated as each state becomes different and it is no longer uniform federal requirements.
What would you do if every state had its own special arbitrary requirement to ship firearms to an FFL in it? Some more difficult than the other?
Requirements that each state altered every so many years?

It of course would interfere with interstate commerce, and be a royal headache.

Kingofthehill
June 3, 2010, 08:26 PM
As a former CA resident that now lives in the FREE state of Texas (thank GOD!)... I ship to CA.

I would love to sell every gun i could to CA and help arm them to piss off the gun grabbing hippies :)

JOe

ArmedLiberal
June 3, 2010, 08:55 PM
Shipping to California requires very little effort. Register your account with the CA DOJ and get a shipping number by computer. It's not complicated at all.

What really chaps my hide is all of those who feel that they are teaching the California legislature a stern lesson by refusing to ship to CA. Those in the CA legislature voting for more gun control are pleased as punch to hear that they have slowed down the trade in legal firearms. Or they don't care either way and are just happy to ride anti-gun sentiment to re-election.

The only ones being punished are the firearms owners and potential customers who of course already hate California gun law and vote against it at every opportunity.

California Gun Control wins a victory every time someone refuses to ship firearms to California.

ArmedLiberal

Full Metal Jacket
June 3, 2010, 09:11 PM
you can buy guns in Cali?

:eek:

ArmedLiberal
June 3, 2010, 09:18 PM
you can buy guns in Cali?

:eek:


Yes! It's true! Millions of guns bought and sold just in CA alone. And all these poor "No sales to California" saps losing out.

Here's one of Sacramento's finest firearms emporiums.

http://shopping.sacbee.com/ROP/ads.aspx?advid=1101108&adid=9409513&cat=3475

Full Metal Jacket
June 3, 2010, 09:55 PM
:eek:

Bubbles
June 3, 2010, 10:09 PM
Those in the CA legislature voting for more gun control are pleased as punch to hear that they have slowed down the trade in legal firearms.

They would be less pleased if every manufacturer, distributor, and dealer followed Ronnie Barrett's example and limited LE and government sales to the same types of firearms that could be purchased by the public.

Also, while the CFLC is easy to use, there have been two separate occasions where we needed to log in to it and it was down for maintenance. So, in theory, if the CA government wanted to stop shipments to CA FFL's they'd just take the CFLC offline.

docpadds
June 3, 2010, 10:21 PM
The CFLC system is also a very badly written web site, but thats just my IT side showing through, but it really is easy to use. Nearly every FFL I have sent stuff to in CA has had their CFLC number on the same fax as the FFL when faxed over.

I personally am just fine with other dealers not wanting to sell to the 8th largest economy in the world, their loss.

craneman
June 4, 2010, 09:38 PM
Thanks Docpadds and Bubbles for putting up with this silly state and thier idiodic rules. I will happily purchase firearms from you. When people ask me where would they be able to get a good deal on something ( I do get people asking me at work alot, as I am considered the "gun guy" there) I have a list of Ca friendly sights to give them to browse. I also give them my FFL's name and number. This almost always makes it happen cheaper than any retail outlet here.

To those who feel an outright ban of California by dealers would turn it around here. I assure you it would not. You see, we "gunners" are vastly outnumbered here. Yes there are alot of guns in Calif., but very small percentage of owners rank "gun control policies" high on the list of priorities to vote for. Education is going to be the true savior for this place. Most of the large percentage of population live in HUGE urban areas. I am one of them. I can tell you with certainty that the vast majority have never been hunting, target shooting for fun, much less even held a firearm. All they ever see that involves firearms is the news (generally bad), and T.V shows and movies (almost as bad). They have never experienced or have first hand knowledge of the good side. I assure you that there are a bunch of people working tirelessly to try to change this place, but it is an EXTREMELY LONG and STEEP uphill battle. For those of you that continue to support us a huge Thank You.

killchain
June 4, 2010, 10:32 PM
If it pisses you off that people won't ship to California, I got a solution.

Vote those gun control fanatics OUT.

harmonic
June 4, 2010, 10:58 PM
Vote those gun control fanatics OUT.

They would if they could. The problem w/********** is that the densest population centers are rabidly anti gun, anti American, and anti righteousness. L.A. San Fran. Sacramento. The communists have a Joseph Stalin iron grip on the state.


Shipping to a California FFL adds all of ONE MINUTE to the time it requires me to process a shipment.


I think many dealers are tired of trying to keep up with **********'s annually changing list of approved guns. That, plus the added paperwork/approval just makes it more trouble than it's worth for them.


I disagree with the train of thought that says boycotting CA is "giving in" to the gun control activists. People only start to care when things effect them. If buy boycotting shipping to CA effects enough people and costs businesses money then hopefully it will motivate them to rise up and change their laws. In the end, its always about the money and you have to hit them in the pocket books to see some positive change.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The politicians are the ones celebrating when dealers boycott the state. And the politicians don't lose anything, especially not financially.

And the dealers don't lose anything, since there are plenty of FFLs who will ship to kal.

The only people losing anything are the consumers who try to buy a particular gun at a particular price. They're the ones who are effected from such boycotts.

NavyLCDR
June 4, 2010, 11:15 PM
To those who feel an outright ban of California by dealers would turn it around here. I assure you it would not.

Nothing is going to change ********** except for MAYBE a major US Supreme Court smack down. And then they will find every loophole and trick they can to keep the oppressive thumb on the law abiding citizen.

Kentucky_Rifleman
June 4, 2010, 11:19 PM
If the gun control is oppressive enough, and allowed to go on long enough, Kali will be "Chicago, West Coast Style" in a few years.

Sometimes the worst thing you can do to a group of morons is give them exactly what they ask for.

KR

sniper5
June 4, 2010, 11:24 PM
Ronny Barrett is my hero. If everyone would refuse to sell anything to police and government agencies that is illegal for public use, laws would change quickly. No standard cap magazines, no automatic weapons, no AR's, no .50 cal, no off roster handguns, no handguns without locks, etc.

TripleT
June 5, 2010, 11:00 AM
As a California FFL I appreciate the support of my vendors that take the extra couple of minutes to do the CFLC. Keep in mind, private parties have no requirement to use the CFLC system, only other FFL's. (How's that for stupid)

As others have stated, we are behind enemy lines here. Not much chance of voting the liberal jackasses out that impose idiotic gun laws on the law abiding citizens (criminals aren't affected of course) of our once great state. It's all about what makes them feel good about themselves and taking away evil guns feels oh so good.

Part of the background process (DROS) shows me how many transactions are done each day in CA. You'll be happy to know that it regularly exceeds 1,500 transactions per day, which means we transfer about 1/2 a million guns a year. Now that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!! :D

harmonic
June 5, 2010, 11:53 AM
private parties have no requirement to use the CFLC system

I was living in kal when they first passed those idiotic laws. I couldn't figure how they exempted pawn shops either.

which means we transfer about 1/2 a million guns a year

And if only all the gun owners would unite to actually do something. I would campaign w/my gun owning friends about the assault rifle ban and they weren't interested because they didn't own an "assault rifle." But when they found out that the first draft included all repeating (including pump) shotguns, then they were interested.

We couldn't even get Ducks Unlimited interested, cause they didn't see how fascist gun laws impacted them.

craneman
June 5, 2010, 03:08 PM
It seems as if that is a fairly common part of human nature, that is rapidly expanding. If it doesn't directly apply to them, why should they care. Unfortunately (most) people just go through life with blinders on. They fail to see the big picture, so to speak. I see that it is in no short supply here, either. I make that statement based on SOME, not ALL, of the above statements made to this thread.

GlockStar
June 7, 2010, 12:05 AM
Just don't accept IOU's and everything should be fine.

EOD Guy
June 7, 2010, 11:33 AM
Who do you think are the biggest beneficiaries of the CFLC system? It's California dealers. Internet dealers not shipping to California means more sales by California dealers.

If a private party cannot order over the internet and have the firearm sent to a California dealer then his only other sources are private party sales by California residents or sales by California dealers.

docpadds
June 7, 2010, 03:21 PM
Or use a middle man service.... we just turned around a rifle today for somebody in CA who could not receive it until it was made CA legal.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shipping guns to California?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!