PDA

View Full Version : Cal B of F or federal NICS?


HunterJim
05-21-2009, 7:05 AM
I am in the process of asking my state reps to cut some state spending by eliminating state duplication of existing federal programs. Before I ask for something I will regret is there any advantage to keeping the Bureau of Firearms compared to the NICS federal system of purchase approval?

thanks...jim

Bugei
05-21-2009, 8:51 AM
Well, you can ask. Just don't expect anything to happen.
We have the BoF background check because California rules seem to be little different than federal rules on what's a disqualifier. And because NICS doesn't cover our 10-day waiting period.

But if you can get the legislature (ptooey!) to defund BoF, you'd be a very popular guy. With me, anyhow!

dustoff31
05-21-2009, 9:19 AM
You might point out to your reps. that the NICS system is FREE. The FBI does not charge to conduct the checks.

Therefore any amount of money expended by the BOF for conducting NICS checks is unnecessary. As is any amount of money charged by the state to perform NICS checks.

Secondly, the FFL does the calling to the conduct the checks, so the state employees who now do that would then be available for real work.

zinfull
05-21-2009, 9:24 AM
It would save money to get rid of this department. They cause more problems and will not answer a question with a straight answer. They say let the local DA figure it out. Why do we need these guys?

CSDGuy
05-21-2009, 9:41 AM
The DoJ does the NICS check... or it is supposed to.

JDay
05-21-2009, 12:14 PM
You might point out to your reps. that the NICS system is FREE. The FBI does not charge to conduct the checks.

Therefore any amount of money expended by the BOF for conducting NICS checks is unnecessary. As is any amount of money charged by the state to perform NICS checks.

Secondly, the FFL does the calling to the conduct the checks, so the state employees who now do that would then be available for real work.

Do you really think the state would give up free money?

halifax
05-21-2009, 12:36 PM
MCI handles the DROS software for the state. If CA is under longterm contracts with MCI, it may not be so easy. But it's worth trying.

dustoff31
05-21-2009, 1:46 PM
Do you really think the state would give up free money?

Of course not.

Just trying to help the OP out. I wish him success, but think he's wasting his time.

HunterJim
05-21-2009, 1:52 PM
I am not under any illusions about asking state elected officials to *do* anything, especially something they don't like.

I also want to be asking them to do something positive to counter their claim that we never suggest anything positive for them to do. A second reason is to keep up my pro gun policy comment so they can't say they never heard from any gun owners (they seem to have short memories).

jim

KWA-S
05-21-2009, 8:30 PM
A second reason is to keep up my pro gun policy comment so they can't say they never heard from any gun owners (they seem to have short memories).

Carbon copy the media. Maybe said legislator will do something wrong that finally gets noticed, and actually gets the outrage it deserves, like Pelosi and her briefing issues, and the media would say something like "oh and another thing" and mention what you wrote and they ignored.

Bugei
05-22-2009, 6:49 AM
MCI handles the DROS software for the state. If CA is under longterm contracts with MCI, it may not be so easy. But it's worth trying.

My understanding is that it's a five year contract extension. Funny story: the Department of General Services (DGS) was requiring DOJ to put that contract out to bid, in order to meet state procurement guidelines. This would, in effect, require the winning bidder (if not MCI) to build a new system. To replace a working system. (I don't like it, but it does work. Kind of.)

So DOJ protested and was overruled: DGS just wasn't having.

So DOJ put in the paperwork, which had to be approved by the Department of Finance (DOF). And wasn't. "What? You want to replace a working system with a new one to the tune of x-million bucks? Just to satisfy the DGS? Disapproved."

I don't know if they're still debating it, but what fun it is to watch government agencies going at it.

FS00008
05-22-2009, 7:57 AM
I got it. Contract with the state for say $100,000 to provide every FFL with a copy of the NICS number and a packet outlining exactly how to use it :-P

No more DROS... no more $35 to the state/FFL...