California Law Changes July 1 - Affects FFL Xfers

What's especially silly is that ignorant posters here target Southern California, which, once you get south of Los Angeles proper, is to the right of Phoenix, and WAY to the right of the populated parts of Oregon.

These laws come from the Bay Area and LA. Nobody else wants 'em. The ranges and gun shops are pretty busy around here.

Furthermore, this law just requires that an FFL verifies that another FFL is legit through a (poorly-designed) database system.

Honestly, it's hard to argue that this is so unreasonable. Something like it should really replace the ancient "faxed or mailed copy" system nationwide. This is 2008, not 1968.

If you want to complain about something, consider the gun laws in California and other places that have a far greater impact on RKBA than this.

Consider the fact that FFL's exist at all: Federal law creates an oligopoly of firearms dealers who get a legally-guaranteed cut of all interstate and commercial sales when, before GCA 1968, one could just order guns from the Sears Catalog.

I'm not happy about this law, but this law is hardly the largest problem. Why should we have to handle firearms sales through an FFL, really? I can buy a chainsaw from Texas and a knife from Idaho. And in the modern world, one could easily be NICS'ed remotely.

Don't forget what the real problem is, here. And when FFL's complain, don't forget that there's no magic reason that anyone should get a cut of interstate sales. This is purely an arbitrary law, and FFL's, for all their genuine tribulations with the ATF, profit from this.

Sorry Prince Yamato, but you are the last optimist!
CA gun law will not go back unless people stand up for their rights.
Worse: CA laws get copied by other states!

I agree with ArmedBear. All of CA is not anti-gun, it just happens the the two largest cities are. I live right by San Francisco, and its horrible. There are fights going on, some successfully as well. It is a long and uphill battle. If I was older and established in the state with a job, I would not think about leaving. CA has a lot to offer that many people wish they could have, it just also has very liberal policy makers.

Private party transfers at the local shop: 75$.
Private party transfers at the local Big5: 80$.

Be nice to us Ka folks. We didn't/don't intend to ruin it for ourselves.

they legally can't charge that much for a p2p in CA... now if the gun is shiped too them.. thats another story.

Not to tease you or something, but here in Maine my customers pay $25 for a transfer and I check if the gun is stolen!
Of cause it is a wanted effect in CA to make any firearm purchase as exspensive as possible, so that there are less guns bought.

Good post by Armed Bear above.

Sure some FFLs will quit selling to CA, but I bet the big guys who do good business selling to CA will continue. If they need to charge us an extra 5 or 10 bucks to cover the few minutes it'll take to enter the receiving FFLs info on the DOJ website and print the letter, that's fine.

I don't agree with this law at all, but its not near as bad as, for example, the ammo ban bill that's in the state Senate. Among other things, that one will end mail order ammo sales altogether.


Edit: I guess I was right. Just saw this post regarding Buds on calguns:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=105650

Haha California

If I lived in KA, I believe I would rather give my business and money to dealers in another state since the KA dealers want to use the "anti" laws for their monetary gain. I could see myself driving over the line and picking up my wants and needs from friends and family until the time comes that they start searching vehicles at the state line/border...at which time KA is no longer part of the "UNITED" States of America. Personally, if my state and my usual dealers want to make it hard for me, I will take my business elsewhere...I do that now.

Many CA dealers are perfectly willing to skirt the edges of the law by selling us off-list 'assault weapons' with pinned magazines. So much for them "using 'anti' laws for their monetary gain."

I don't get the analogy of skirting the law by selling pinned magazines and being for an anti-gun gun law??? They aren't opposed to the new law because it makes them more money and narrows the citizens of KA's source of toys at the buyer's expense. If that bothered me and I lived there, I would skirt my little butt somewhere else to spend my money in order to get more for my dollar.

Its not an analogy. You're talking about dealers using an anti-gun law for their monetary gain, and I gave you a direct example otherwise. CA firearms dealers just operate within the laws they have.

And they WERE opposed to the new law, we opposed it every time it came up. Just the 'representatives' in Sacramento could care less about what gun owners say, because they need to make it look like the State is doing something about 'gun crime' instead of just arresting criminals. CA FFLs don't need any more paperwork, and CA gun owners don't need any reason for FFL transfers to get more complex....

My gun dealer came up to me today and handed me a copy of the letter he received regarding this issue. He was laughing and said - "you gotta read this one !"

Then he turned to the secretary and instructed her to change his Gunbroker auctions to read " No sales to California" .

He shakes his head and says " Why should I go through the hassle of asking permission to ship a gun to another FFL ? " - " Not worth it ".

Besides being a$$holes, someone should ask themselves why the CA government comes up with this now?
Next year you have the micro stamping in CA and of cause this way they want to make sure that not someone sneaks in some used guns with no micro stamping!
Also, the market for guns will get very small next year since a lot of companies will not be able to sell in CA!

Then he turned to the secretary and instructed her to change his Gunbroker auctions to read " No sales to California" .

Click to expand...

If he made a significant number of sales to California, he wouldn't have done this. It's a vain gesture.

Next year you have the micro stamping in CA and of cause this way they want to make sure that not someone sneaks in some used guns with no micro stamping!
Also, the market for guns will get very small next year since a lot of companies will not be able to sell in CA!

Click to expand...

LOL

I oppose that law, too, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

You did not hear about the micro stamping, effective in CA form Jan 1st, 2009?
This is such a useless law, that even NJ rejected it!!

If he made a significant number of sales to California, he wouldn't have done this. It's a vain gesture.

Click to expand...

While some companies and distributors make substantial sales to California, out-of-state individual FFL dealers don’t do that much business. They are the ones that will either say forget it, or tack on a substantial fee. Where this will hurt for example, is when a California resident places a winning bit on one of the auctions, and the seller tries to find an FFL that will handle the transaction on their end; or in other instances where anyone elsewhere in the country needs to ship a firearm to California for whatever reason.

I am sure that the legislators behind this are well aware that while California gun owners or buyers are willing to suffer through this sort of thing, those that aren’t often won’t. From the legislature’s point of view anything that impedes firearms comerence is good, and they will continue to pass statutes and impose regulations to further this.

You did not hear about the micro stamping, effective in CA form Jan 1st, 2009?

Click to expand...

No, he or she is saying you don't understand the law. Which you must not if you think it will start next year. Read what the law actually says instead of just taking it for what YOU think it says. It is a common misconception which many people have that it will just happen to work. While it is a horrible idea, the law as written will have a hard time working the way people think it will.

wolf13: You mean the micro stamping or this new law?

I'm curious to know what the BATFE thinks of CA stepping into an area that should only be regulated by the Feds.

Well, CA does that in a few sectors for quite a while.
For example CA requires to keep trade in for 30 days (I think) before the dealer can sell the gun and then buying ammo in CA is it's own game!
A state can put higher restrictions on.
I just wonder how this "medical dope" works with the feds in CA!?

Redundant law.

Meanwhile the criminals go to the nearest corner and buy a gun in 2 minutes.

You did not hear about the micro stamping, effective in CA form Jan 1st, 2009?

Click to expand...

I did.

And I actually read what the law says.

The Internet makes that easy.

You know, RKBA in the US and in California needs intelligent opposition. Emotional ignorance does not help.

buying ammo in CA is it's own game!

Click to expand...

Really? How does that work? I'm curious.

Why should we have to handle firearms sales through an FFL, really? I can buy a chainsaw from Texas and a knife from Idaho. And in the modern world, one could easily be NICS'ed remotely.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me! Straw purchases and gun show loopholes have already put enough guns into the wrong hands. Dream on. At the pace the firearms industry evolves at, we're all going to be driving Hydrogen F350 SuperDutys before this ever happens.