PDA

View Full Version : Might I be able to get a Dangerous Weapons Permit in the future?


Experimentalist
05-01-2009, 6:28 PM
Interesting times...

Once upon a time I wanted to buy a suppressor here in California. The fellow I spoke to at ATF was kind, courteous, and indicated they were happy to help me out on the Federal level. However....

He politely suggested I might want to consult with the California DOJ first. I spoke to a lady (this was years ago, no idea who it was) who stated I needed a "Dangerous Weapons" permit to legally buy a suppressor in California. I said "Okay, give me one of those". :rolleyes: I was a little innocent in those days.

So now we're a good 15 years on, and the landscape has obviously changed. There are more important issues before the gun rights groups right now, and I certainly do not want to distract from those efforts.

But there are some interesting parallels between the Assault Weapons permit, and the Dangerous Weapons permit. The Dangerous Weapons permit has an important difference in that the Dangerous Weapons permit is "discretionary issue" while the Federal tax stamp is "shall issue". Seems there might be some interesting leverage to be had there?

Just thought I'd throw it out for discussion.

armygunsmith
05-01-2009, 7:12 PM
Interesting idea. Suppressors on California would be pretty nice.

Telperion
05-01-2009, 7:47 PM
Silencers aren't covered under the dangerous weapons permit. The only way to own one in the state privately is to pay the SOT and become a manufacturer.

Experimentalist
05-01-2009, 9:35 PM
Wow, I've been believing that DOJ person for 15 years now.

I checked, and you appear to be correct. It looks like the only way to legally acquire a suppressor is for me to become a licensed manufacturer.

I've been on CalGuns for awhile now, so I shouldn't be surprised the DOJ is either inept or lied to me. But I'm pretty fried about it.

DOJ, I know you're reading this: You Suck!!!!

DDT
05-01-2009, 9:39 PM
I believe that the National NFA rules will be applied to CA in the future. Assuming NFA is constitutional I don't think the courts will allow the states to prevent you from owning an NFA weapon, with stamp.

How long will this take? Probably 2-5 years after someone files a competent lawsuit. I would suspect you are about half-way through your wait at this point.

Telperion
05-01-2009, 9:55 PM
On the bright side, the cost to establish and operate as an actual class II manufacturer is probably less than what it would take to wring one of those DW permits out of the DOJ.

Experimentalist
05-01-2009, 10:03 PM
I would suspect you are about half-way through your wait at this point.

I've been waiting for 15 years, so I only have another 15 to go? :kest:

On the bright side, the cost to establish and operate as an actual class II manufacturer is probably less than what it would take to wring one of those DW permits out of the DOJ.

This actually sounds like fun. I'll have to do some research into what it would cost.

andrewj
05-01-2009, 10:04 PM
DOJ, I know you're reading this: You Suck!!!!

Thats sig material

"Okay, give me one of those"

If only it were that easy...

yellowfin
05-01-2009, 10:14 PM
You know it sure is funny how badly this state hates firearms that it would pass up 9.25% sales tax on a $200 to $1000 firearm accessory- not even a firearm itself- when they are utterly desperate for any other possible way to get money from us because they're billions of dollars in the hole. That's right, state of California, we would gladly pay you up to $100 in sales tax, plus income taxes from the guy selling it, per each of these items of which we would buy tens of thousands of TOMORROW if you would drop this idiotic and infantile prejudice against them.

Experimentalist
05-01-2009, 10:49 PM
You know it sure is funny how badly this state hates firearms that it would pass up 9.25% sales tax on a $200 to $1000 firearm accessory...

Class III firearms trend towards the expensive end of the spectrum in the shooting world. So yeah, California is passing up tax income on sales of Colt M16 & M16A1's from $13,995, M14's from $14,995, and M16A2, NIB at $20,995.

One could point out that the sales tax income on one of these items is about the same as a cheap new car. However, Class III weapons consume less fossil fuel, create less greenhouse gasses, and kill fewer people, than cars. (Hmmm, there's a pithy T-shirt slogan in there somewhere....)

(Prices taken from ad placed by Ruben A Mendiola Jr. in The Small Arms Review, June 2008 issue.)

Experimentalist
05-01-2009, 11:06 PM
This actually sounds like fun. I'll have to do some research into what it would cost.

Ouch. $3,000 a year.

Still... it is tempting. Something to put on the list of future possibilities.

7222 Hawker
05-01-2009, 11:48 PM
I believe that the National NFA rules will be applied to CA in the future. Assuming NFA is constitutional I don't think the courts will allow the states to prevent you from owning an NFA weapon, with stamp.

How long will this take? Probably 2-5 years after someone files a competent lawsuit. I would suspect you are about half-way through your wait at this point.

OK so excuse me for my self proclaimed ignorance - what is an "NFA Stamp"?

ke6guj
05-02-2009, 12:01 AM
An NFA stamp is what the National Firearms Act branch affixes to an approved application to make or transfer an NFA firearm, such as an Machine Gun, Short-barrelled Rifle/shotgun, Suppressor (silencer), Destructive Device, or AOW (Any other Weapon, a catch-all of restricted firearms such as gadget guns and pen guns).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Here is an example of an approved Form 1 with the affixed $200 tax stamp, and no, it is not a CA-legal SBR.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/zombies.jpg

KWA-S
05-02-2009, 1:29 AM
i. State why you intend to make firearm (use additional sheet if necessary)
Zombies


Good reason.

slappomatt
05-02-2009, 9:44 AM
lol thats the best!

singleshotman
05-02-2009, 12:10 PM
I used to know "Dangerous Dave Clumberland back about 15 years ago, we were discussing this very subject. Dave said"you want a 6pdr Anti-Tank Gun(that's 57mm to you folks), i can get you one in six weeks or less.A Machine gun in this state, forget it". I don't think it's changed at all in the last 15 years.I still know some people who shoot BIG GUNS, Heck CA even outlawed mag strips for a 45-70 Gatling gun, hand cranked, i'm not kidding.Their "Assult WEapons" in spite of being hand cranked.

kermit
05-02-2009, 5:29 PM
There must be someone with such a manufacturer's license already in CA. If the DOJ won't issue the permits to the potential customers, is that grounds to sue for restraint of trade, or whatever it's called when you interfere with commerce?

JDay
05-02-2009, 5:44 PM
I used to know "Dangerous Dave Clumberland back about 15 years ago, we were discussing this very subject. Dave said"you want a 6pdr Anti-Tank Gun(that's 57mm to you folks), i can get you one in six weeks or less.A Machine gun in this state, forget it". I don't think it's changed at all in the last 15 years.I still know some people who shoot BIG GUNS, Heck CA even outlawed mag strips for a 45-70 Gatling gun, hand cranked, i'm not kidding.Their "Assult WEapons" in spite of being hand cranked.

Remember when you could get that hand cranked hit at Wild Sports that you hooked up to two .22 rifles? Those were the days.

JDay
05-02-2009, 5:46 PM
Nice to know that "Zombies" are a valid reason to get a NFA tax stamp.

the_quark
05-02-2009, 6:09 PM
Dave said"you want a 6pdr Anti-Tank Gun(that's 57mm to you folks)

Personally, I'd say 57mm is a bit overpowered for Zombies, myself.

JDay
05-02-2009, 6:19 PM
Personally, I'd say 57mm is a bit overpowered for Zombies, myself.

Not when you're shooting through a group of them, helps make the ammo last longer.