Calif.'s ongoing bam-fuggles..

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lonestar49

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
2,653
Location
So. Calif.
...

Well, just when it took, what, 3yrs for the people's - Keepers to enact the cell phone law (hands-free) ??

Yet, no-one saw the even more dangerous use of any hand-held-phone while driving, that texing (sending via typing or receiving via reading) checking the news, emails, Stock Market, etc., via looking at the phone and not the road, was not addressed nor is it a crime, our roads are now safer while anyone "talks." Does it get any better.. ?? :rolleyes:

Of course, (I find out the hard way, loss of used gun purchase and saving money) as a *new gun law that took effect this July 08, (how does this get thru so fast..??) now requires anyone selling a used gun from out of State must have their FFL send in, (*I'm guessing), for a DOJ "Shipment of Firearms Approval" first to clear it with our State.. * that the seller is not a Felon, on probation, etc., that the sending FFL is legit and current, and the gun is Calif approved, and the ID of said gun is legit (not hot or stolen or not on the approved gun list.)


My FFL told me, "it's no big deal, cost nothing to send in, takes maybe a day or two, could take only a few hours", but it's another little piece of paper and process that infringes on law abiding citizens in our State, and those outside our State, that want to conduct legal, honest, gun business.. :rolleyes:


Does that about cover it, or is there something else I should know.. ??

Please, enlighten me if there is more..



Ls
 
It is just the DOJ insuring that is has its own seperate control, and people do not simply follow the law on thier own in ways the DOJ disagrees with.

To out of state dealers it just adds one more hoop they have to jump through, and another way to violate the law if you forget.

Fewer places are willing to do business with CA.


There was some things that are legal to do being done that the DOJ might not agree with.
For example there is certain types of pistols exempt from the CA approved pistol list. One of those types is single shots.
If someone took a single shot upper and put it on on any lower, it could be imported into CA and legaly sold.
The owner is then free to install or purchase any upper they wish.

Now however the DOJ if they choose could simply deny it, saying the model firearm is not approved or some other drivel.
So even though it would be legal, they hold the final veto now over anything they want.
They still have to improve thier forms to weild that power well.

It can also allow them to claim various other things are not allowed even if they are legal, and deny import.
Things like offlist ARs and AKs have long been a sore point with the CA DOJ, so it could effect certain recievers in the future.

It just adds a whole new list of options on what they can do. It does not have to change much immediately, but over time they can set all types of criteria and actualy enforce it now since all imports much be pre approved.
 
Last edited:
Sheesh, people.

Please read CA-DOJ's webpage on their California Firearms Licensee Check System (CFLC).

It applies ONLY to FFLs.

As of July 1, 2008, California Penal Code Section 12072(f)(1) PDF logo [PDF 30 kb / 1 pg] prohibits all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), other than Type 03 or 06 FFLs, from shipping firearms to an FFL in California unless, prior to delivery, the FFL intending to deliver, sell or transfer the firearms obtains a verification approval number from the California Department of Justice (CADOJ) Bureau of Firearms. This includes transfers that occur at gun shows.
Click to expand...

And, at this level, there is no indication of what is to be shipped outside of 'handgun' or 'long gun' and the number.

It's silly, true. But as it stands, it's only an annoyance.
 
Yes it is only step one.
They have not used it to implement much yet, it just went into effect, but what they can do with it is fairly large.

Now they have that veto power though, and can adapt.
Fortunately they are usualy big and slow, but they will adapt, and they will use it to thier advantage, improve and update forms etc.

It only applies to FFLs, but all transfers between states must go between FFLs, so almost all firearms entering the state go through it.
That means most firearms that legaly enter the state are processed through the CA DOJ.

It does not effect most of us, yet. But it puts a lot of options on the table for the CA DOJ.
 
Just an annoyance.. ?

Sheesh, people.

Please read CA-DOJ's webpage on their California Firearms Licensee Check System (CFLC).

It applies ONLY to FFLs.


Quote:
As of July 1, 2008, California Penal Code Section 12072(f)(1) PDF logo [PDF 30 kb / 1 pg] prohibits all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), other than Type 03 or 06 FFLs, from shipping firearms to an FFL in California unless, prior to delivery, the FFL intending to deliver, sell or transfer the firearms obtains a verification approval number from the California Department of Justice (CADOJ) Bureau of Firearms. This includes transfers that occur at gun shows.

And, at this level, there is no indication of what is to be shipped outside of 'handgun' or 'long gun' and the number.

It's silly, true. But as it stands, it's only an annoyance.
Click to expand...

sheesh Libarian, we all cannot be Librarians, and have all the answers.. at hand, but thanks for sharing the info..

But as far as "just an annoyance".. this annoyance just cost me a great buy on a used Sig P229 n/r 40 from one of our THR members from Oklahoma, who said he got the paperwork, no problem, but his original FFL refused to ship the gun doing, or getting, the "Firearms Shipment Approval" from the DOJ, along with his second try at another FFL..

A good friend from Penn. said he called his FFL and they, too, are not gonna ship any guns to Calif because of this "annoyance"

Well, this "annoyance" just cost me money, and time, and it looks like I'll have to pay more Calif gun prices to get my gun from within my State..


Don't you think there is more to this, and the/any FFL's, that are refusing, now, to send any used guns to Calif, for a seller or buyer, that are willing to pay an additional fee for their time, IF that is one of their gripes.. ?

My Calif gun dealer charges me a 30 dollar DOJ chk fee every time, every gun.. It's a money maker, I fill out the forms, sign them, and they simply feed it into their DOJ fax line and its otw, and comes back in 10 days or sooner, but by law, I think, I have to wait 10 days from the date submitted.. 30 bucks for 30 secs of time for them..

That's good money by my reasoning.. along with shipping



Ls
 
Don't you think there is more to this, and the/any FFL's, that are refusing, now, to send any used guns to Calif, for a seller or buyer,
Click to expand...
Yes, every other state has its own laws, but interstate most go by the federal FFL laws which are the same for everyone.
It is the recieving FFLs' job to know there state laws and abide by them.

It means FFL holders can interact and do business with eachother with people in foriegn locations without legal counsel and having to insure they know the laws of all 50 states every month. Should someone always require legal counsel to do business in another state?

CA is complicating it further, applying its laws not only to its own citizens but to foriegn FFLs (and interfering with interstate commerce.) What they require of thier own firearm dealers is one thing, but requiring foriegn FFLs to do something is where it becomes a problem.

When do you say enough is enough? When you need to consult a lawyer just to send firearms between people already federaly approved to deal in firearms? Or when some state decides being federaly approved is not good enough and treats you as criminals that have to be scrutinized?

If foriegn locations simply comply not only will CA create new incremental difficult hoops to jump through, but other states may follow suit.
It drasticly reduces the purpose of even having FFL licensing if things get that way. FFL policies and regulations are supposed to be the federal requirements to ship firearms from one to another.
The states themselves can govern how they go from FFL to purchasers and what is required from FFLs in thier own state, but from FFL to FFL things are supposed to be the same.

As I said anything else interferes with interstate commerce.
In fact if many FFLs stop doing business with CA over it I think the argument could be made that it is interfering with 'interstate commerce'. Now if only they used that clause to help firearm rights.
 
Last edited:
Zoogster, I had the same thought as you - there's interstate commerce implications here that could be the basis for getting it struck down. Unfoprtunately they weren't dumb enough to add a fee for the processing of the form, but it does still create added cost and paperwork on the out of state seller/FFL. I'm curious; does anyone know what the penalty is for an out of state FFL shipping to CA without the CA DOJ form/approval?

edited to add...

Just noticed they're requiring the same approval for firearms shipped between two FFLs within the state also...
 
My understanding is that there is no penalty for the out-of-state shipper, but for the in-state receiver. Thus, because an FFL is in business in California, he can be punished because somebody in another state did something the CADOJ doesn't like.

Does this sound similar to all anti-RKBA laws: HE did something bad with a gun, so YOU can't have one?

Pops
 
My understanding is that there is no penalty for the out-of-state shipper
Click to expand...

Thats what I would think - trying to enforce your laws outside of your jurisdiction can be problematic. But hey, this is CA - thinking up this sort of wacky crap (regardless of whether its a good idea or even legal/enforceable) seems to be par for the course there.
 
Thats what I would think - trying to enforce your laws outside of your jurisdiction can be problematic. But hey, this is CA - thinking up this sort of wacky crap (regardless of whether its a good idea or even legal/enforceable) seems to be par for the course there.
Click to expand...

That's accurate.

Lonestar, I'm sorry for your troubles, but if you read the info, you'll see that the CA requirement is really pretty trivial, and costs very little to get started. I can see that an FFL might not want to bother. Of course, that's what California legislators are hoping will happen - and that is the real issue here.
My Calif gun dealer charges me a 30 dollar DOJ chk fee every time, every gun.. It's a money maker, I fill out the forms, sign them, and they simply feed it into their DOJ fax line and its otw, and comes back in 10 days or sooner, but by law, I think, I have to wait 10 days from the date submitted. 30 bucks for 30 secs of time for them..
Click to expand...
They don't get all $30 - some of it, I don't remember how much, goes to a State fund.

DROS isn't -my- idea of a reasonable law.

'Sheesh' was in reaction to FUD in the first two posts. California lawmakers have earned the reputation for being unreasonable fools, but posting what amounts to rumors doesn't help.

PM me, or billweise, or quiet or a couple other of the CA posters; we try to be right on top of this stuff, and speaking only for myself, I feel a self-imposed duty to get out accurate information and 'refine' information that is somewhat less accurate. Goes with the username, I guess.
 
Librarian, if you think this new rule is 'trivial', I'd suggest you go over to Gunbroker.com or any of the other gun auction sites and start making a list of all the sellers who now refuse to ship ANY gun to California. It's going to become darn hard for any good California citizen to buy a gun, but the criminals will have plenty of them--as usual!
 
Lonestar49, I agree on the legislation is BS. But on the Sig 229 you missed out on, private individuals are exempt from this law. The seller if he isn't an ffl could have shipped the gun to your ffl. There would be no extra paperwork involved. Your ffl sends the seller a copy of his license and then the seller ships. It's totally legal. Now if they don't want to do that and require an ffl on both ends that's on them. Mark
 
Lonestar49, I agree on the legislation is BS. But on the Sig 229 you missed out on, private individuals are exempt from this law. The seller if he isn't an ffl could have shipped the gun to your ffl. There would be no extra paperwork involved. Your ffl sends the seller a copy of his license and then the seller ships. It's totally legal. Now if they don't want to do that and require an ffl on both ends that's on them. Mark
Click to expand...

Thanks RR, that is what happened when I asked my FFL if they would except the gun from a non-party FFL.. and they said Nope. But that bit of information is good to know.. thanks.

Anyone know of an FFL person in the Orange County area that will? If so, PM his name, tele #, would appreciate it..

And Librarian, my hair was still a bit high when I read your response, I'm sure you understand.. But keep up the information, we Californians can use all the legal, loophole, you name it, to get around "The_Wall" that our ~ Keepers ~ are trying to build, and of course, on the wrong borders, North and East, but the South is still wide open.. figures :rolleyes:


Ls
 
  • Yes, it's an irritating stupid law.

  • Don't blame the Ca DOJ Firearms Bureau for this one: this was the result of legislation.
    [The supposed goal of it was supposedly to stop doctored/ Photoshop-mangled FFLs from
    being used for illegal deliveries to nonFFLs or FFLs (rare) who don't have all their CA paperwork
    operational.] DOJ didn't really wanna jump thru all these hoops implementing a new program
    without $money$, etc.

  • No, it does NOT apply to non-FFL sellers shipping guns to CA FFLs.
    (However, FFLs should not pose as individuals for this: that could get
    the CA FFL in trouble.)

  • No, out-of-state FFLs do NOT have any liability for compliance to
    CFLC: that falls on the the CA FFL to ensure the transaction is squared
    away.

  • No, there is no inspection of the items purchased (is this banned?
    is this Rostered? etc.) - that's a function of the CA FFL to ensure.

  • Yes, it takes a couple of minutes to sign up for CFLC initially and
    a minute or two to print out the confirmation page for each gun going
    to CA. I think most CA folks would be willing to accept a few bucks
    extra charge from source FFL for this, we understand there's a tad
    extra effort.

  • If your CA FFL rejects accepting a gun from a non-FFL, that's his
    fault; nothing in CA or Fed law prohibits that action and he's proceeding
    either from a mistaken belief this 'protects' him, or he doesn't know the
    laws surrounding his own business.


I have it on good authority some 'cleanup legislation' will sail thru in near future to make the FFL-to-CA FFL process even easier. This may include removal of the per-transaction paperwork requirement (i.e., once two FFLs have done biz together and done their 1st check, subsequent deals are paper-free.)

In the very near future, we will be assembling a list on Calguns.Net of "CA-preferred" FFLs in each area of the country who've supported us, so that we can run the large volume of CA business thru these "preferred" guys. We'll also be running a list of specific "early deniers" so that CA folks and their extended friends & family throughout the country know not to do non-gun biz with these folks (scopes, ammo, gear, etc.)

Remember, not supporting Californians by not shipping guns into CA is what the Bradys want.

I wish to thank Bud's Gun Shop, along with several other FFLs whose name escapes me, for supporting us.



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
Librarian, if you think this new rule is 'trivial', I'd suggest you go over to Gunbroker.com or any of the other gun auction sites and start making a list of all the sellers who now refuse to ship ANY gun to California. It's going to become darn hard for any good California citizen to buy a gun, but the criminals will have plenty of them--as usual!
Click to expand...
So, loneviking, which group of Californians are those sellers supporting?

A person can run his/her business as s/he sees fit - that's one of the meanings of "it's a free country".

Personally, I'd be a bit embarrassed to state publicly that I supported the Brady Campaign's goals by my business actions.
 
billwiese:We'll also be running a list of specific "early deniers" so that CA folks and their extended friends & family throughout the country know not to do non-gun biz with these folks (scopes, ammo, gear, etc.)
Click to expand...


Why would I want to punish anyone for being rightfully frightened of running afoul of California’s Byzantine firearms laws? If I was an FFL or a private seller outside of California I wouldn’t ship into the state either. It is not the responsibility of people who live in free states to take risks to support Californians.
 
It is not the responsibility of people who live in free states to take risks to support Californians.
Click to expand...
But it seems to be good business to understand how to safely sell to about 1/12th of the population of the country.

If one gets accurate information and makes an informed decision, then more power to them.

If one makes decisions based on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it's still a decision. It might even be the right decision, but that seems unlikely.
 
It seems to me that you and Wiese have the attitude that once you have pronounced ‘The Word’ that no one is allowed to have ‘Uncertainty’ or ‘Doubt’. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a vendor who doesn’t need or want California sales to decline to accept your posts as gospel.

As for the ‘not shipping to California is just what the Bradys want’, that’s clueless. The gun-haters are win-win on this- either people don’t ship to California, or they are forced to kiss California’s ring. The fact that one way the California subject gets his gun is pretty trivial, as the gun or its equivalent likely can be purchased within the state anyway.
 
It seems to me that you and Wiese have the attitude that once you have pronounced ‘The Word’ that no one is allowed to have ‘Uncertainty’ or ‘Doubt’. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a vendor who doesn’t need or want California sales to decline to accept your posts as gospel.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Vendors need not accept my 'word' about anything.

But I -cite- my claims. They can be checked. Vendors should decide if they care to make informed decisions, and if they do, they should find accurate information. With accurate information, anyone can make a good decision, satisfactory to him- or herself.
 
So, loneviking, which group of Californians are those sellers supporting?

A person can run his/her business as s/he sees fit - that's one of the meanings of "it's a free country".

Personally, I'd be a bit embarrassed to state publicly that I supported the Brady Campaign's goals by my business actions.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You're a real piece of work! I guess Ronnie Barrett of the famous Barrett rifle, who refuses to sell to Cal. and won't even work on PD Barrett rifles is on your little black list as well? Or STS firearms, makers of some very nice semi-autos who had the guts to tell Cal. to take their gun laws and shove it are also on your black list?

I would bet they are just shivering with fear and embarassment, just like the hundreds of others of us who won't sell firearms in California!? NOT!

You guys in Cal. have already been thrown under the bus and the bus is dragging you down the road. I say it's time to take a bazooka to the bus and if that offends you---TOO *$&% BAD!
 
just like the hundreds of others of us who won't sell firearms in California!
Click to expand...
Friends, you're going to run your businesses to suit yourselves, and I'm fine with that.

Thanks for all your help and support.
 
Librarian: But I -cite- my claims.
Click to expand...


Where’s the cite that says there’s no possibility Librarian missed something?

California is one of the most anti-gun states in the Union, run by and largely populated by people who hate guns and gun owners, and its laws reflect that. I’m completely sympathetic to people who don’t want to risk their property/time/clean record shipping guns here on the basis of your citations.
 
If one makes decisions based on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it's still a decision. It might even be the right decision, but that seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

I assure you that the decisions being made to not ship guns to CA are being made with eyes wide open and not out of fear, uncertainty, or doubt. The new law in CA is quite simple and straight forward. It is also wrong, and the straw that broke the camels back for many FFL dealers who have enough damn paperwork to contend with in order to sell their product.

It also has nothing to do with support or non-support of California's gun buyers, but being 1/12 of the population doesn't mean all others should have to cater to the whims of the CA looney elected officials.
 
being 1/12 of the population doesn't mean all others should have to cater to the whims of the CA looney elected officials.
Click to expand...
That's true. Bad enough we have to endure it.

Honest, folks, those really are your businesses, and running them the way you see fit is clearly the Right Thing To Do. If you don't find the California market worth the hassle - for any reason, or no reason - then you won't sell into the state. It's literally "none of my business".

I only stepped into the thread because the first couple of posts were a little off-base. If we're going to get left out, I want it to be for accurately represented problems - those are bad enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top