California Law Changes July 1 - Affects FFL Xfers

[ArmedBear]

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.

Yup. It probably won't happen.

However, it's a fact that anyone who has an FFL is profiting from this. I can buy every single part of a gun off the Internet, just like a lot of other products, except for the frame or stripped receiver, depending on the gun. Were it not for GCA68, I'd just buy the whole thing off the 'net like I can buy a crossbow, and nobody gets his Federally-guaranteed cut of my purchase.

And furthermore, FFL's are happy to point out this crap about "guns in the wrong hands", as if the extra fee and the legally-mandated cut FFL's get of any interstate sales makes a damn bit of difference in the crime rate.

It's a self-serving game. Can't blame someone for "rent-seeking", I guess, but I don't have to like it, or them, for taking my money.

For an FFL to complain about something that makes it a bit harder, when he has a Federally-protected business with legally-limited competition, is pretty rich, though. For an FFL, who makes his living off Form 4473, to claim to be "refusing to sell" to a state that requires some extra paperwork, in the name of gun rights, is the height of hypocrisy.

If you make your money off the restrictions on RKBA, then you are a part of this problem, too. I'm not saying there's a good way around it; I'm saying, "methinks the man doth protest too much."

 

[ArmedBear]

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."

That is incorrect.

When OLL's first came to CA, the dealers who sold them added a very healthy markup. I bought a $100 lower for $175 then, because that's all I could get.

Sure, that was my problem. I didn't NEED an AR for anything; I have a Mini-14 anyway. But they certainly were exploiting CA's gun laws for monetary gain.

...and that's why the firearms retailers in CA don't mind this law...

Again, I can't really blame them for a maneuver that fills their own pockets. But do I have to like them for it?

 

[MDW GUNS]

First of all ArmedBear, where did I pi$$ you off?
No need to get personal.
Since you live in CA, you maybe don't understand where too much government intrusion starts! Seems to me, you are happy with those laws?!

Emotional ignorance does not help.

Hey, it’s you who they pinch!
I can live perfectly without ever going to CA again!
I am convinced, the CA government wants to make the purchase of a firearm so expensive that only rich people can afford them!

How does that work? I'm curious.

I would not like to have to provide a finger print and leave my name, address and phone number to Wal-Mart only to get a box of ammo!
Call me paranoid, but the government has no right to trace what legal commodity I buy when and where!

...it's a fact that anyone who has an FFL is profiting from this...

Now that is really interesting and you need to explain to me, who I profit from more work?
If I sell a gun on the internet and someone form CA wants to buy it, I will hardly be able to charge the buyer more because of this form.
But I risk my neck if I don't do it right or someone in CA makes a mistake and I get blamed!
The I have to get an attorney in CA and fight any BS they might come up with!
Don't tell me that this is not possible, because it happend to me!

... firearms retailers in CA don't mind this law...

Granted, that might be true, but is restricted to CA FFL!
This law will cut down the internet sales and will bring up prices in CA.

 

[ArmedBear]

I would not like to have to provide a finger print and leave my name, address and phone number to Wal-Mart only to get a box of ammo!
Call me paranoid, but the government has no right to trace what legal commodity I buy when and where!

It's been several days since I bought ammo at Wal-Mart, so maybe I'm not up-to-date, but way back in early June, I didn't have to leave anything. I haven't bought ammo at a retail gun store since Wednesday night, but when I did, I didn't have to leave anything. And I haven't gotten any mail-order ammo delivered since Thursday. Didn't even have to sign for it.

So I really don't know what you're talking about, even though I live in California and you don't, and I'm good for a few hundred rounds a week, even when I try to conserve.

Maybe people in Maine know more about what it's like when I buy ammo than I do. Since I'm not on heroin or crack, though, I think I'd remember leaving fingerprints.

Now that is really interesting and you need to explain to me, who I profit from more work?

Anyone who is an FFL profits from GCA68, which is what allows this, among other thing. You make money from interstate sales only because the law won't allow guns to be shipped to anyone but you and a few other licensees.

If I buy a book off the Web, I don't have to pay someone to receive it. If I buy an AR upper off the Web, I don't. If I buy a pocket knife off the Web, I don't.

Why does someone have to pay you? Because the law forces them to do it, plain and simple.

Do you REALLY not get that?

But back to the subject at hand, you still don't know what you're talking about with the "microstamping" law, and the fact that you want to repeat your incorrect information does not mean I like the law. Why would it?

I despise the law, and the law it amends, and I abhor the underlying intent of that law. But it doesn't say or do what you think it does, either.

 

[OnPointFirearms]

For an FFL to complain about something that makes it a bit harder, when he has a Federally-protected business with legally-limited competition, is pretty rich, though. For an FFL, who makes his living off Form 4473, to claim to be "refusing to sell" to a state that requires some extra paperwork, in the name of gun rights, is the height of hypocrisy.

If you make your money off the restrictions on RKBA, then you are a part of this problem, too. I'm not saying there's a good way around it; I'm saying, "methinks the man doth protest too much."

Now I know how you got to 11k+ posts.

 

[OnPointFirearms]

Granted, that might be true, but is restricted to CA FFL!
This law will cut down the internet sales and will bring up prices in CA.

Roger that, MDW. Bottom line: everyone loses on this deal. CA residents will pay more and wait longer for guns. FFLs will waste precious time jumping through CA DOJ's hoops in order to make a sale. AND the only way to hedge yourself from a lawsuit is to stop doing business with CA altogether!

It's really a sad day for CA gun owners.

-- Evan

 

[MDW GUNS]

...Anyone who is an FFL profits from GCA68...

I don't want to sound like a child, but NO, it is only more work for me I don't get paid for.

And I haven't gotten any mail-order ammo delivered since Thursday. Didn't even have to sign for it.

Well if you haven't gotten nothing so why would you have to sign for nothing!

Anyway, since you are happy with the laws where you are and I am happy here, I will leave this discussion now.
One last favor: Please don't move to another state!!

 

[OnPointFirearms]

Well if you haven't gotten nothing so why would you have to sign

Bwahahahahaha! Classic!

 

[Bubbles]

Anyone who is an FFL profits from GCA68

Obviously you've never held an FFL. GCA68, the 1986 machine gun ban, and a host of other gun control laws are nothing more than a drain on my company's time and resources.

The only ones profiting from gun control laws are politicians.

 

[ArmedBear]

Well if you haven't gotten nothing so why would you have to sign for nothing!

Huh?

I didn't have to sign for the 250 rounds of rifle ammo that showed up on my doorstep Thursday, nor did I have to give a name and address for the box of 9mm I bought Wednesday, nor did I have to leave any information for any of the ammo I bought at Wal-Mart earlier in the month.

Perhaps that's worded so you can understand it. Perhaps not.

 

[El Barto]

Armedbear,

I live just outside of LA, in Maywood. In LA, you have to provide a fingerprint when you buy ammo and maybe signature (I forget, since I don't buy too much in LA). Drive to another "city" and you just give them your money.

Also, ammo sales are restricted on and around holidays like July 4th and New Years.

I rather get my ammo delivered or I purchase from some place that isn't as meddlesome.

 

[MarcusWendt]

Big45 said

Haha California

It's this kind of attitude the gun grabbers love. They take us down one state at a time.

United we stand divided we fall.

it is very sad to see this childish gloating from fellow gun owners and shooters.

There is this attitude of "I have mine, screw the rest of you".

Do you people really think that once all guns are banned in CA the Brady Bunch is just going to fold their tent and go home?

Once CA falls they will have the much more money to focus on your little gun haven. The politicians will listen because now they have street credit.

Sure, they won't get every state, but they'll get some.

California is the front line of the 2A battle and those that don't support us are not in the fight. You're in the rear with the gear.

With attitudes like the above, it's no wonder we are losing.

For those that do support us, thank you.

 

[MDW GUNS]

...There is this attitude of "I have mine, screw the rest of you"...

A very short way of thinking.
You are write, every gun law is a nail to the coffin freedom is barried in!

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Don't have time to read the thread, but in my experience with purchasing firearms the sending FFL has always requested a letter to put on file before shipping.

 

[Art Eatman]

Too much argufication. Unsettles my breakfast. Melts the ice cream. Plumb ungruntling...

Enuf.