PDA

View Full Version : DOJ BoF lowering DROS $5 - Help drive it lower!


hoffmang
07-26-2010, 8:53 PM
Late this afternoon, CA DOJ BoF posted a proposed rulemaking to lower the DROS fee by $5 across the board. The proposed regulation is here (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/DROSregs.pdf).

There have been a lot of changes in the BoF staff so we think that the missing notice/comment period may be an oversight. As such, we'll want to pull together some comments on the fees. We believe that the changes are being driven by a surprisingly large surplus in the DROS trust account (which means we all have been paying too much.)

I would love it if the minds of we Calgunners could pull together evidence that shows that DROS should be even lower. NICS checks are free in most states so it would appear that BoF would justify their fees based on California specific database checks and the cost of entering (only handguns) into the AFS system.

Can we come up with creative proof points that that still shouldn't cost $14/$10 and that a long gun should cost even less than $14?

-Gene

jb7706
07-26-2010, 8:58 PM
I have no familiarity with the DROS software, but wouldn't the FFL entering the transaction be the one who actually enters the info into the AFS system? It would make sense to simply import that data directly. That is much less labor on BoF side.

Taking that further it would be easy to take the info from the dealer entry and automatically run a query against the CA DB. Even less manual work for BoF staff. Only entries that are flagged need to be reviewed by a human. Again, assuming they have this degree of automation.

383green
07-26-2010, 8:58 PM
In addition to the delightful fee reduction, I like the proposed change to the wording of the first paragraph. The proposed new version is worded better than the previous version.

Librarian
07-26-2010, 9:02 PM
Remember In addition to the State's $19.00 DROS fee, you must also charge a $1.00 Firearms Safety Testing fee and a $5.00 Safety and Enforcement fee. How are those funds doing?

G17GUY
07-26-2010, 9:04 PM
I don't know if I am on track here or not; but, what if we look at the amount of firearms sold in california vs other states.

If we use that along with the cost to DROS a firearm in other states vs cali, this data might show that the DROS system in california brings in more than needed to manage the system vs other states.

hoffmang
07-26-2010, 9:05 PM
Here is some of the relevant Penal Code from 12076:


(e)The Department of Justice may require the dealer to charge each firearm purchaser a fee not to exceed fourteen dollars ($14), except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations. The fee shall be no more than is necessary to fund the following:

(1)(A)The department for the cost of furnishing this information.

(B)The department for the cost of meeting its obligations under paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 8100 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(2)Local mental health facilities for state-mandated local costs resulting from the reporting requirements imposed by Section 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(3)The State Department of Mental Health for the costs resulting from the requirements imposed by Section 8104 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(4)Local mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions for state-mandated local costs resulting from the reporting requirements imposed by Section 8105 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(5)Local law enforcement agencies for state-mandated local costs resulting from the notification requirements set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 6385 of the Family Code.

(6)Local law enforcement agencies for state-mandated local costs resulting from the notification requirements set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 8105 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(7)For the actual costs associated with the electronic or telephonic transfer of information pursuant to subdivision (c).

(8)The Department of Food and Agriculture for the costs resulting from the notification provisions set forth in Section 5343.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code.

(9)The department for the costs associated with subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072.

(10)The department for the costs associated with funding Department of Justice firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, loan, or transfer of firearms pursuant to this chapter.

The fee established pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed the sum of the actual processing costs of the department, the estimated reasonable costs of the local mental health facilities for complying with the reporting requirements imposed by paragraph (2) of this subdivision, the costs of the State Department of Mental Health for complying with the requirements imposed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision, the estimated reasonable costs of local mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions for complying with the reporting requirements imposed by paragraph (4) of this subdivision, the estimated reasonable costs of local law enforcement agencies for complying with the notification requirements set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 6385 of the Family Code, the estimated reasonable costs of local law enforcement agencies for complying with the notification requirements set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 8105 of the Welfare and Institutions Code imposed by paragraph (6) of this subdivision, the estimated reasonable costs of the Department of Food and Agriculture for the costs resulting from the notification provisions set forth in Section 5343.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the estimated reasonable costs of the department for the costs associated with subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072, and the estimated reasonable costs of department firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, loan, or transfer of firearms pursuant to this chapter.

(f)(1)The Department of Justice may charge a fee sufficient to reimburse it for each of the following but not to exceed fourteen dollars ($14), except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations:

(A)For the actual costs associated with the preparation, sale, processing, and filing of forms or reports required or utilized pursuant to Section 12078.

(B)For the actual processing costs associated with the submission of a Dealers' Record of Sale to the department.

(C)For the actual costs associated with the preparation, sale, processing, and filing of reports utilized pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 12078 or paragraph (18) of subdivision (b) of Section 12071, or clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072.

(D)For the actual costs associated with the electronic or telephonic transfer of information pursuant to subdivision (c).

(2)If the department charges a fee pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of this subdivision, it shall be charged in the same amount to all categories of transaction that are within that subparagraph.

(3)Any costs incurred by the Department of Justice to implement this subdivision shall be reimbursed from fees collected and charged pursuant to this subdivision. No fees shall be charged to the dealer pursuant to subdivision (e) for implementing this subdivision.

(g)All money received by the department pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account of the General Fund, which is hereby created, to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for expenditure by the department to offset the costs incurred pursuant to this section, paragraph (1) and subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072, Sections 12083 and 12099, subdivision (c) of Section 12131, Sections 12234, 12289, and 12289.5, and subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 12305.

(h)Where the electronic or telephonic transfer of applicant information is used, the department shall establish a system to be used for the submission of the fees described in subdivision (e) to the department.

(i)(1)Only one fee shall be charged pursuant to this section for a single transaction on the same date for the sale of any number of firearms that are not pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person or for the taking of possession of those firearms.

(2)In a single transaction on the same date for the delivery of any number of firearms that are pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, the department shall charge a reduced fee pursuant to this section for the second and subsequent firearms that are part of that transaction.

(j)Only one fee shall be charged pursuant to this section for a single transaction on the same date for taking title or possession of any number of firearms pursuant to paragraph (18) of subdivision (b) of Section 12071 or subdivision (c) or (i) of Section 12078.

I already note that its not clear they can charge for a subsequent handgun...

-Gene

hoffmang
07-26-2010, 9:07 PM
If we use that along with the cost to DROS a firearm in other states vs cali, this data might show that the DROS system in california brings in more than needed to manage the system vs other states.

We know for a fact that DROS brought in too much money - hence the surplus.

The 2010-2011 budget (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1810_cfa_20100427_155144_asm_comm.html) shows a surplus in that account of $18M.

-Gene

69Mach1
07-26-2010, 9:07 PM
About time. :)

383green
07-26-2010, 9:08 PM
Do we have access to data about the number of DROSes processed since the last time the fees were set, and the size of the surplus? If so, we could easily calculate the net historical operating cost per DROS, and thus estimate a suitable new DROS fee that would balance out the DROS budget and burn through the surplus by around the proposed fee re-evaluation date (at which time the fee might bump up a bit since the surplus would presumably be gone).

Santa Cruz Armory
07-26-2010, 9:10 PM
So are all CA dealers required to charge $5 less now?

hoffmang
07-26-2010, 9:13 PM
Remember How are those funds doing?
These look to be "continuously appropriated" so they go into the general fund and not a special trust/account like the regular DROS fees - we think. Feel free to prove that wrong.
So are all CA dealers required to charge $5 less now?

As soon as the regulation becomes effective and the effective date of the change is set, then the cost of DROS will decrease at all CA FFLs (who are paying attention). CA DOJ BoF will send them a notice though.

-Gene

stitchnicklas
07-26-2010, 9:19 PM
what about the handgun i bought last friday?? do i get my 5 bucks back???

Hippo
07-26-2010, 9:22 PM
Awesome news. If they'd divide up the surplus among all DROS victims in the last few years it would be even better.

383green
07-26-2010, 9:23 PM
what about the handgun i bought last friday?? do i get my 5 bucks back???

No, but that won't seem like such a big deal if you treat the one-handgun-per-month law as a challenge rather than a restriction. ;)

Jack_Bauer
07-26-2010, 9:24 PM
what about the handgun i bought last friday?? do i get my 5 bucks back???

Nope, regulation hasn't kicked in yet

morfeeis
07-26-2010, 9:27 PM
what about the handgun i bought last friday?? do i get my 5 bucks back???
No way in hell, they'll hold on to that tighter then a fat kid to cake....

hoffmang
07-26-2010, 9:29 PM
Interestingly, the "Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund" isn't continuously appropriated. Despite it paying out $3.3M this past year it has a surplus of $5.65M... See line item 1008 here (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/GovernorsBudget/0010/0820RWA.pdf). 0032 is the Firearm Safety Account and it has a surplus of $1.7M... DROS is 0460.

-Gene

thayne
07-26-2010, 9:31 PM
I dont think they should be charging any fee on a fundamental right

G17GUY
07-26-2010, 9:31 PM
(e)
The Department of Justice may require the dealer to charge each firearm purchaser a fee not to exceed fourteen dollars ($14), except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the California Department of Industrial

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/dwc.pdf

Sure they weren't just overcharging and got called on it?

wildhawker
07-26-2010, 9:33 PM
Drafting a Public Records Act request now. Please continue to ask and research the issue; I'll finish and send it off in the morning.

Librarian
07-26-2010, 9:36 PM
These look to be "continuously appropriated" so they go into the general fund and not a special trust/account like the regular DROS fees - we think. Feel free to prove that wrong.


Safety and Enforcement (has to do with HSC, I think) is -- 12076.5. (a) The Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund is
hereby established in the State Treasury and shall be administered by
the Department of Justice. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the
Government Code, all moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated
to the Department of Justice without regard to fiscal years for the
purpose of implementing and enforcing the provisions of Article 8
(commencing with Section 12800), as added by the Statutes of 2001,
enforcing the provisions of this title, and for the establishment,
maintenance and upgrading of equipment and services necessary for
firearms dealers to comply with Section 12077.
(b) The Department of Justice may require firearms dealers to
charge each person who obtains a firearm a fee not to exceed five
dollars ($5) for each transaction. Revenues from this fee shall be
deposited in the Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund.

I suppose that means no good avenue to encourage change.

thedrickel
07-26-2010, 9:40 PM
I don't think there's any real accounting on the BOF side . . . somebody figured, eh, we're running a 200% markup on DROS's . . . . let's throw them a bone . . . 5 bucks off!

BTW that was a good point by 383green, if we can figure out a Point A and backtrack to that $$$-wise, we can figure out a per-DROS cost (on all 3 funds) and argue that the DROS fee should be reduced . . . I think cost minus 10% sounds pretty good. Should burn up that surplus nice and slow. :)

hoffmang
07-26-2010, 9:46 PM
Safety and Enforcement (has to do with HSC, I think) is -- I suppose that means no good avenue to encourage change.

Notice that (b) [the $5] isn't appropriated the same way.

-Gene

Shotgun Man
07-26-2010, 9:47 PM
Might this become a campaign issue? If so, how does it play?

trashman
07-26-2010, 9:50 PM
Drafting a Public Records Act request now.

This may not require a FOIA/PRA, but I would be curious over what time period the $18M reserve/surplus was generated. I note the reserve was called out in the 'fiscal effect' of the text of AB1810.

The text of the bill notes ~475,000 long guns and handguns that were DROSd in the last year; it doesn't appear mathematically possible that the $18M reserve/surplus was generated in the last year.

I bet this fund has been running a surplus for at least 5 years.

--Neill

stitchnicklas
07-26-2010, 10:04 PM
No, but that won't seem like such a big deal if you treat the one-handgun-per-month law as a challenge rather than a restriction. ;)

what restriction?????

03ffl+coe=no problem buying more than 1 handgun..

383green
07-26-2010, 10:07 PM
what restriction?????

03ffl+coe=no problem buying more than 1 handgun..

You only bought one handgun last Friday? For shame! :p

Window_Seat
07-26-2010, 10:08 PM
In all real seriousness, not only do we work on getting the fees reduced even more, can we then begin to make this a precursor to completely eliminating the DROS all together? I'm willing to go baby steps toward that goal, but I would like this to be an ultimate goal, or is the DROS here to stay considering that RKBA is now a FRKBA.

Erik.

383green
07-26-2010, 10:11 PM
I figure it'll take a few steps to get there, but I have a hard time imagining how a 10 day wait and $any fee can stand strict scrutiny, particularly when it's a 15 minute wait and no fee in other states.

wildhawker
07-26-2010, 10:49 PM
In re fees:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/calstars/ucm/19fundalpha.pdf
63344
63345
63346

MAJOR PROGRAM CHANGES
Gun Show Program-The Budget includes an augmentation of $801,000 Dealers' Record of Sale on an ongoing basis to
aid in the prevention of sales of illegal firearms and ammunition at gun shows around the state. Of this amount, $616,000
was previously funded by the General Fund.

adrenalinemedic
07-26-2010, 10:52 PM
How about giving at surplus back to gun owners as a stimulus to buy more guns?

They'll get the money back in DROS fees...and it'll stimulate buying in the CA economy.

Seesm
07-26-2010, 11:46 PM
Very cool but that $5 should go to the dealer then... I just think the whole dros is lame.. There is no money for dealers and I am not dealer.. just feel bad that they make no money for there time.

tenpercentfirearms
07-27-2010, 12:13 AM
Very cool but that $5 should go to the dealer then... I just think the whole dros is lame.. There is no money for dealers and I am not dealer.. just feel bad that they make no money for there time.

As a dealer I gotta say none of that money ought to go to us. No money for my time? The least I make is $10 for a PPT and the most I make is hundreds to thousands of dollars on some high end guns.

If the gun business was so horrible, I would sell the place and move on. It isn't the greatest, but the benefits are pretty worth it.

Alaric
07-27-2010, 1:44 AM
The past overcharging by the DOJ is our "in" to file a class action suit to not only recover our fees paid in excess, but to also extract punitive damages and seek an injunction to deny DOJ the ability to continue administering the DROS program. Due to their obvious negligence and mismanagement, as evidenced by the gross disregard for our rights in overcharging us, repeatedly, for years, they should no longer be afforded the luxury of standing in the way of lawful commerce and the right of the citizens to lawfully acquire firearms.

Hey, with the right judge, it might just work ;)

ETA: Are DROS files themselves part of the public record? Even if they're not, who knows what we could dig up in discovery once a suit is filed. Get access to the entire database? If enough of those records or background checks are botched then there's even more ammunition to throw at them...

BigDogatPlay
07-27-2010, 2:33 AM
We believe that the changes are being driven by a surprisingly large surplus in the DROS trust account (which means we all have been paying too much.)

Proving once again that you really can make the $$$ up on volume. :)

A very interesting turn of events. I would absolutely agree that the opportunity is ripe to seek an adjustment for DROS paid in excess for however long the account has been in surplus. I'd guess the surplus goes at least to FY 08/09. If the surplus goes back farther than that, that might present a really rare opportunity.

greasemonkey
07-27-2010, 5:00 AM
I'm a little surprised they're not trying to up the DROS fee and divert it into the general fund.

M1A Rifleman
07-27-2010, 6:26 AM
Refunds, we should get refunds for recent purchases. :D

Stealth
07-27-2010, 6:38 AM
Recommend to them.

# of Firearms bought (handguns vs longguns) 2009

Amount collected in DROS money in 2009

Amount spent from these fees. The difference is a surplus.

To fix the problem take the # of firearms and divide that into the Amount spent. (okay tricky math as you got 2 #s and each has different fees)

That should be the DROS. Compare to current and make a reduction.

If they want to burn up the surplus then reduce it by 10% (as someone mentioned) and it will consume the surplus.

ECVMatt
07-27-2010, 7:18 AM
Here is my take on it. I think in the Pre-McDonald days the DOJ would have simply shown us the freeway finger and continued to raise fees and basically do whatever they wanted.

Now I think they see themselves as somewhat open to challenge/attack. I bet they are auditing programs to make sure they don't appear to be unreasonably overcharging or abusing 2A rights or have programs that effect 2A rights in an overtly biased manner. It looks like they might be in CYA mode. This could be the first sign in a big shift related to the way CA DOJ does business.

I am sure that I am being overly optimistic, but I have had enough of the bad news lately. I think things are starting to turning the right way for a change.

Vectrexer
07-27-2010, 7:25 AM
I for one wonder why the whole DROS back end is being run by company not in California? Could we realize even more savings , and justify lower fees, if the system were brought back in state?

REH
07-27-2010, 7:57 AM
Using the DROS number, you can determine the average amount of DROS processed for that day. I have noticed a DROS submitted early evening will be in the 1050 to 1200 for the past year. Most Sundays will not reach 1000. If you take an average of 1000 per day multiply by the 19.00 fee, equals 19,000.00 per day. Multiply that by 365 and it works out to 6,935,000 dollars.

yellowfin
07-27-2010, 8:22 AM
http://search.vzwwap.com/search/Thumbnail.aspx?i=http%3A%2F%2Fanimals.nationalgeog raphic.com%2Fstaticfiles%2FNGS%2FShared%2FStaticFi les%2Fanimals%2Fimages%2Fprimary%2Ftarantula-feeding.jpg&w=252&h=252&t=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbnai l.aspx%3Fq%3D169287427205%26id%3D46cd6c631059ab1a7 beda0e809a09451&c=pokUydSd

Just in case the people are watching this thread.

radioburning
07-27-2010, 8:40 AM
I'm a little surprised they're not trying to up the DROS fee and divert it into the general fund.

I'm surprised some politician hasn't already jumped in with "This is great! We'll put this money towards my 3rd summer ho...I mean education. Yeah, education, for the children":cool:

wash
07-27-2010, 8:46 AM
I've heard that DROS can be held up by parking tickets.

Last time I checked, that's not a prohibiting offense so they shouldn't spend DROS money checking it or holding up sales.

If we can get a list of the databases that are checked and every thing that can hold up a sale, we can tell them to quit checking certain things that don't prohibit gun ownership.

glenndf
07-27-2010, 8:49 AM
Might this become a campaign issue? If so, how does it play?
It's probably a wash as a campaign issue. Brown can argue that since he's been AG since '07, and there's no way DOJ could have racked up this big of a surplus overnight, that he's been competent in the administration of DOJ and hence can be trusted with the Governorship. Whitman can argue that budget surpluses in individual agencies at a time of $21B deficits overall are a sign of "Sacramento Waste" and that this money should either a) be returned to all taxpayers (and not just the gun owners who paid the fees) or b) should be sent to help close budget shortfalls in law enforcement or general expenditures.

At any rate, this issue won't have much pull this cycle. This election will be about jobs and the economy.

383green
07-27-2010, 9:14 AM
I've heard that DROS can be held up by parking tickets.

Last time I checked, that's not a prohibiting offense so they shouldn't spend DROS money checking it or holding up sales.

If we can get a list of the databases that are checked and every thing that can hold up a sale, we can tell them to quit checking certain things that don't prohibit gun ownership.

Brilliant! :thumbsup:

tenpercentfirearms
07-27-2010, 9:31 AM
I've heard that DROS can be held up by parking tickets.

Last time I checked, that's not a prohibiting offense so they shouldn't spend DROS money checking it or holding up sales.

If we can get a list of the databases that are checked and every thing that can hold up a sale, we can tell them to quit checking certain things that don't prohibit gun ownership.

Parking tickets will only hold up DROS if your license gets suspended.

Serpentine
07-27-2010, 9:48 AM
Could this somehow be a move or connection in the direction of utilizing NICS (like other states), and possible elimination of the 10 day waiting period?

.

bwiese
07-27-2010, 9:59 AM
Could this somehow be a move or connection in the direction of utilizing NICS (like other states), and possible elimination of the 10 day waiting period?

.

No. That would require a whole separate (new) body of law.

This action is just 'favorable administrivia'.

wildhawker
07-27-2010, 1:23 PM
ETA: I've already made requests for these records, so please don't submit any requests which would be duplicative. Please PM or email me if you see some area of data which would be useful so we can coordinate efforts. -BC

According to my analysis, the following records are necessary to compile and scrutinize the related financial data and accurately reflect the total costs incurred under the programs:

1. Regarding the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account (DROS) (no. 0460) (http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BzuDXQ308KnoNTUwNDBiOTctYTViZi00OWZlLWI2O DUtNTM0YWZkNmZhZjYy&hl=en), a copy of the historical cost data (both inception to date and last fiscal year) for this and any related funds/accounts, funds/accounts which received monies from or transferred monies to the DROS account, to the greatest level of detail for all cost codes and types, including (but not limited to):
a. actual costs incurred for the local mental health facilities for complying with the reporting requirements imposed by paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12076;
b. actual costs of the State Department of Mental Health for complying with the requirements imposed by paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12076;
c. actual costs of local mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions for complying with the reporting requirements imposed by paragraph (4) of subdivision (e) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12076;
d. actual costs of local law enforcement agencies for complying with the notification requirements set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 6385 of the Family Code;
e. actual costs of local law enforcement agencies for complying with the notification requirements set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 8105 of the Welfare and Institutions Code imposed by paragraph (6) of subdivision (e) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12076;
f. actual costs of the Department of Food and Agriculture for the costs resulting from the notification provisions set forth in Section 5343.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code;
g. actual costs of the department for the costs associated with subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Cal. Penal Code 12072;
h. actual costs associated with the preparation, sale, processing, and filing of forms or reports required or utilized pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Section 12078;
i. actual processing costs associated with the submission of a Dealers' Record of Sale to the department;
j. actual costs associated with the preparation, sale, processing, and filing of reports utilized pursuant to subdivision (l) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12078 or paragraph (18) of subdivision (b) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12071, or clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12072, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12072;
k. actual costs associated with the electronic or telephonic transfer of information pursuant to subdivision (c) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12076;
l. actual costs incurred pursuant to the following:
1. paragraph (1) and subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12072;
2. Cal. Penal Code Sections 12083 and 12099;
3. subdivision (c) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12131;
4. Cal. Penal Code Sections 12234, 12289, and 12289.5;
5. subdivisions (f) and (g) of Cal. Penal Code Section 12305;
m. the statutory and regulatory basis for the DROS program and associated fees (including any associated rulemaking documents and correspondences);
n. CA DOJ’s DROS policy and all processes related thereto, including descriptions of the type and quantity of personnel, equipment/assets and vendors and the tasks performed by each to operate the system and fulfill the objectives of the program;
o. The names of all personnel (and their titles), including a statement(s) of annual wages or salaries, other compensation, fringe benefits and all other employee costs, who participate in the DROS process or incur cost to the DROS budget item(s).
p. Copies of all bills of sale and/or contracts for all interagency/interdepartmental, outside services/vendors, equipment/assets and consumables used in creating, operating and maintaining the DROS system.
2. Detailed DROS transaction reports for each year between inception and the last total fiscal year, including:
a. Number of transactions and the number of all firearms transferred that are not pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person;
b. Number of transactions and the number of all firearms transferred that are pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person;
3. DROS fund total budget and actual revenues, by year, from inception through the last fiscal year;
4. DROS fund total budget and actual costs, by year, from inception through the last fiscal year;
5. Regarding the “Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund” (no. 1008) (http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BzuDXQ308KnoZDg2MGRjODktMzRkNS00MTU4LTgzM jQtYjY2MmMyMWViNjI4&hl=en):
a. current policy and procedures surrounding the Firearms Safety Testing fund, including the statutory and regulatory basis for the program (including any associated rulemaking documents and correspondences);
b. current assessed transactional fees associated thereto;
c. historical cost data (both inception to date and last full fiscal year) to the greatest level of detail for all cost codes and types, including employee, equipment/asset and vendors;
6. Regarding the “Firearms Safety Training Fund Special Account” (no. 0015a) (http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BzuDXQ308KnoYjZhMGRlNWItNzc1MC00MWUxLTg1M DItMGY3ZjllMTkzY2U5&hl=en):
a. current policy and procedures surrounding the Firearms Safety Testing fund, including the statutory and regulatory basis for the program (including any associated rulemaking documents and correspondences);
b. current assessed transactional fees associated thereto;
c. historical cost data (both inception to date and last full fiscal year) to the greatest level of detail for all cost codes and types, including employee, equipment/asset and vendors.

Manuals for known related funds or accounts are attached for reference.

PolishMike
07-27-2010, 1:30 PM
When could this go into effect?

Sgt5811
07-27-2010, 5:06 PM
That surplus is going to go to all the court costs associated with the DOJ getting there arses handed to them after the dust settles from all of the litigation pending.

mzimmers
07-27-2010, 5:17 PM
We know for a fact that DROS brought in too much money - hence the surplus.

The 2010-2011 budget (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1810_cfa_20100427_155144_asm_comm.html) shows a surplus in that account of $18M.

WAT?!

A *surplus* equivalent to the fee for ~750,000 DROSs? Seriously?

How the hell many guns get DROSed in this state in a year, anyway?

I must be misunderstanding something here...

sideshowhr
07-27-2010, 5:19 PM
so... do i get a retroactive refund since it passed with the waiting period? :D

wildhawker
07-27-2010, 5:35 PM
WAT?!

A *surplus* equivalent to the fee for ~750,000 DROSs? Seriously?

How the hell many guns get DROSed in this state in a year, anyway?

I must be misunderstanding something here...

We'll know very very soon.

Reductio
07-27-2010, 5:37 PM
So does this mean PPT's will be down to 30$ now?

choprzrul
07-27-2010, 6:42 PM
I think that everyone is looking at this wrong.

I propose that the statute be reworked so that current DROS fees continue being collected and the resultant fund continue to grow. Here is the kicker:

Once the fund is estimated to be large enough, it will be regarded as an endowment for the express purpose of funding all future checks. We can establish (well on our way now it sounds) a working solution whereby our children won't have to pay these stupid fees. If the law is changed so that ALL future fees would be paid from the endowment, we have the opportunity to limit the anti's use of fees as gun control.

If we are $18 million in the surplus now, we should be able to loan it out to the state for 5% interest, or roughly $1 million annually. Surely that will fund running the system for a year??? If not, continue to collect DROS until it does.

hoffmang
07-27-2010, 7:07 PM
WAT?!

A *surplus* equivalent to the fee for ~750,000 DROSs? Seriously?

How the hell many guns get DROSed in this state in a year, anyway?

I must be misunderstanding something here...

You are not. Apparently, last fiscal year had about 750,000 DROSes actually.

-Gene

mzimmers
07-27-2010, 7:10 PM
You are not. Apparently, last fiscal year had about 750,000 DROSes actually.

Oh, so this is a cumulative surplus, then? The way I read the first post on it, I thought it was a surplus just for that fiscal year.

Either way, though, yeah...time to give the $$ back.

choprzrul
07-27-2010, 7:21 PM
I think that everyone is looking at this wrong.

I propose that the statute be reworked so that current DROS fees continue being collected and the resultant fund continue to grow. Here is the kicker:

Once the fund is estimated to be large enough, it will be regarded as an endowment for the express purpose of funding all future checks. We can establish (well on our way now it sounds) a working solution whereby our children won't have to pay these stupid fees. If the law is changed so that ALL future fees would be paid from the endowment, we have the opportunity to limit the anti's use of fees as gun control.

If we are $18 million in the surplus now, we should be able to loan it out to the state for 5% interest, or roughly $1 million annually. Surely that will fund running the system for a year??? If not, continue to collect DROS until it does.

...or we could use the surplus to buy a bunch of way cool guns, raffle them off, and use the proceeds as a CGF donation?


.

badhabit90
07-27-2010, 7:56 PM
No. That would require a whole separate (new) body of law.

This action is just 'favorable administrivia'.


i would be willing to keep paying the current amount if it were an "instant check" like Nevada and continue to be a happy firearms owner.

i really dont care to pay any MORE, and paying less will just mean that they will up the price twice next time.....WHY you may ask?? .........because Meg Whitman can.....whoops....did i speak out loud again??:eek:

Bugei
07-28-2010, 7:56 AM
Here is the kicker:

Once the fund is estimated to be large enough, it will be regarded as an endowment for the express purpose of funding all future checks.


Oooh! Gotta like that!

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 5:01 PM
$19 DROS: 12076
$5 Enforcement: 12076.5
$1 Safety Devices: 12088.9

Turbinator
07-31-2010, 8:25 AM
How about giving at surplus back to gun owners as a stimulus to buy more guns?

They'll get the money back in DROS fees...and it'll stimulate buying in the CA economy.

You know what, I'm going to offer a different view here.

CA DOJ, you will recind and invalidate the AW laws. You will recind and invalidate the hicap mag laws. You will dump and destroy the handgun roster. You will get rid of the CFLC dealer requirements. This is all fair and reasonable.

In exchange...

The $18M surplus is all yours. Enjoy. Thank you for doing business.

Turby

joedogboy
07-31-2010, 8:45 AM
I dont think they should be charging any fee on a fundamental right

I have to agree.

If there is a compelling public safety requirement for DEROS and background check, then it should be covered by the same tax dollars that pay for other public safety services.

The sad fact (irony) is that when you are forced to pay this fee, you are the one person who is absolutely sure you are safe - and thus are the only person whose "compelling safety interests" are NOT being met. The entire DEROS/background check program is based on the unconstitutional premise that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

This is equivalent to forcing people to pay a "speech tax" (disguised as a "background check and sign registration" fee) before allowing a citizen to participate in a political rally.

1911_sfca
07-31-2010, 1:49 PM
I would propose that the fee be reduced to $10 across the board, and the dealer keep 100% of the fee. The government should not be charging ANYTHING for a fundamental right.

RobG
07-31-2010, 1:56 PM
You know what, I'm going to offer a different view here.

CA DOJ, you will recind and invalidate the AW laws. You will recind and invalidate the hicap mag laws. You will dump and destroy the handgun roster. You will get rid of the CFLC dealer requirements. This is all fair and reasonable.

In exchange...

The $18M surplus is all yours. Enjoy. Thank you for doing business.

Turby

I would hate to pay for our rights but, I'd gladly support this. Shall issue would have to be included.

Casey
07-31-2010, 2:15 PM
How about they use it to fund free Handgun Safety Certificates. Those are required of every new handgun owner that must be renewed every five years if you want to purchase handguns. That's $25.00 every new handgun owner can save and every existing owner that wants to purchase a handgun every five years.

Free handgun safety certs!. The $25.00 goes to the shop or entity administering the test.

Window_Seat
07-31-2010, 2:45 PM
You know what, I'm going to offer a different view here.

CA DOJ, you will recind and invalidate the AW laws. You will recind and invalidate the hicap mag laws. You will dump and destroy the handgun roster. You will get rid of the CFLC dealer requirements. This is all fair and reasonable.

In exchange...

The $18M surplus is all yours. Enjoy. Thank you for doing business.

Turby

I can't see why this wouldn't be reasonable.

As far as including CCWSI, the DOJ cannot make the state SI. This takes either the Legislature, or the courts. Likely it will happen within 18-24 months, courtesy of the courts.

Better yet, how 'bout we start working on dumping the DOJ BOF?

Erik.

wildhawker
07-31-2010, 6:32 PM
Funds can't be moved around at our discretion, just as they cannot at theirs. The reality is that we're at least $5 per transaction more wealthy, possibly more.

383green
07-31-2010, 7:53 PM
Furthermore, DOJ can't just invalidate laws on a whim. They do not have the authority to do so. They could not invalidate the AW laws, magazine laws, roster or CFLC requirements even if they wanted to.

mlaines
07-31-2010, 8:07 PM
So ive been looking for the definitive date of the price change and tell me if im wrong but the way im reading it the date is the 30th of july. Is that right or am i confused?

greasemonkey
08-01-2010, 12:51 AM
Funds can't be moved around at our discretion, just as they cannot at theirs. The reality is that we're at least $5 per transaction more wealthy, possibly more.
So, every time someone does a DROS, we should forward that $5 on to CGF!

wildhawker
08-01-2010, 12:54 AM
We would be absolutely tickled silly if everyone who DROSes a firearm sends even $1 to a gun rights org, such as CGF.

So, every time someone does a DROS, we should forward that $5 on to CGF!

ZenMasta
08-02-2010, 1:53 PM
I've been really thinking about this the last few days. How is it they never spent the money. Not that I have anything against saving. But that right there blows my mind.

Scarecrow Repair
08-02-2010, 3:11 PM
So, every time someone does a DROS, we should forward that $5 on to CGF!

Or the Brady Bunch? Have a checklist?

Forced voluntarism sucks from all angles.

wildhawker
08-02-2010, 3:43 PM
I've been really thinking about this the last few days. How is it they never spent the money. Not that I have anything against saving. But that right there blows my mind.

The fixed cost to operate the program has been reduced while the revenues collected have increased on sales volume.

stix213
08-02-2010, 5:26 PM
Donate the whole $18,000,000 to a good cause with a big banner saying "This wouldn't be possible without the 1,000,000+ gun purchases that made this happen"

orangeusa
08-27-2010, 4:08 PM
So they're having a discussion on Sept 15th.

What's the feeling for when this rolls out? November 1st, 2010?

I tried to tell a LGS that DROS PPT was $30, and no, that didn't fly!! :)

halifax
11-02-2010, 6:09 AM
Any word on this yet or did I miss the memo?

REH
01-18-2011, 11:59 AM
Any updates? I thought the goverment could not collect more money than the actual operating cost??????????