PDA

View Full Version : Cheaper Than Dirt Catalog Notice


Go Navy
01-04-2011, 8:47 PM
Today I got a Jan. 2011 Catalog #401 from Cheaper Than Dirt (CTD). In tiny print, about the size of what you would see on the back of an aspirin bottle, at the bottom of the cover page, it says "January 1, 2011 We Will No Longer Sell Ammunition to Residents of California."

Notice it says "ammunition", not handgun ammunition. I could find no further explanation inside the catalog. So, CTD is kissing off California due to Taxifornia's new ammo laws. As I understand things from readings here in Calguns.net, this new, objectionable law pertains only to semi-auto handgun ammo. Yet here we have a major mail order discounter bailing out on the whole ammunition business in the U.S.'s largest state.

This is ominous for the future.

Now, what I am thinking about is whether I will do any further business of any kind with CTD. I don't expect them to violate Taxifornia law, but why shouldn't they do business within the latitude allowed by the law?

jonyg
01-04-2011, 8:58 PM
They're paranoid I guess.
Makes no business sense to me, but if they don't want CA business it's their loss. Best way to get them to change is to boycott all product lines from CTD as a whole. Take it to people who don't give a foot when they lose an inch.

They did recently throw in nominal support for fighting the AB962. Hopefully it's a sign of change to come...

gotthelife4u
01-04-2011, 9:02 PM
I got Cabela's Catalog today. They said they will stop shipping handgun ammunition on 01/21/11. I'm pretty sure you can still get rifle and shotgun ammo once this takes effect. The funniest thing is one the back side of the notice there are last minute ammo specials just for us California Residents.

Go Navy
01-04-2011, 9:08 PM
I think I'll boycott Cheaper Than Dirt on general principles. :mad:

ojisan
01-04-2011, 9:19 PM
Please note that CTD has joined us in the fight against AB962.
Refusing to sell any ammo to CA at all is being done for a reason.
The law is poorly written, vague and subject to legal challenge.
The game is on and this is part of it.
I do understand the frustration, but beating on CTD right now does not help.

Perhaps when CTD sees a victory here, they will loosen up some of their other no-sales-to-CA policies.

383green
01-04-2011, 9:21 PM
CTD's plan to stop shipping ammo to CA has been heavily discussed here, particularly in this thread:

Cheaper Than Dirt! joins fight against California AB 962 ammo ban! (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=361155)


I received a CTD catalog the other day, too. I tossed it in the trash can without a second glance as soon as I recognized it.

westsiderippa
01-04-2011, 10:58 PM
ok, this is confusing and im starting to get frustrated. i was just about to put in an order with ctd and confirmed on the site that we will ship to your ca zip code. there about to lose a pretty nice little order from me including a lot more than ammo if they wont ship. guess il call them in the morning.

PsychGuy274
01-05-2011, 1:05 AM
OK guys, keep in mind that, under AB962, I don't know what "handgun ammo" is You don't know what "handgun ammo" is and the California Department of Justice doesn't know what "handgun ammo" is.

No one knows.

If I was an out of state business I would be terrified about shipping anything that could connected to firearms into California, even knowing A LOT about California firearm laws. I don't blame them.

I think it's just as much of a logical disconnect to blame them for this as it is for them to tell us to "just vote them out of office."

Ron-Solo
01-05-2011, 1:17 AM
CTD won't ship AK stocks to CA either....

cbn620
01-05-2011, 1:23 AM
I don't think it is a logical disconnect at all. Yes this is bad law, yes no one really knows for sure what "handgun" ammunition is. But for all intents and purposes I think we can safely say no one will be in an ounce of hot water for mail-ordering .30-06 or .308 or 12 gauge shells. To imply such is just plain, pure, unadulterated FUD.

I can't wait for all the people who don't follow gun laws/news and basically the only information they get are in magazines and catalogs like this start reading little ads like this. Can't wait till I have to constantly explain to people that no, it's not illegal to buy ammunition for my shotgun over the Internet. More misinformation, more BS. And just like with certain evil guns pre-OLL, misinformation soon becomes "fact."

To me his is nothing more than a business participating in gun control. When CTD does stuff like this, the people who wrote the bill win, and it makes our situation for actually voting these people out of office like they so politely suggest that much more difficult. When companies like CTD do this, they effectively make bad gun laws worse.

And on one final note, on the topic of them looking out for their own interests, this is nothing of the sort. That's short-sighted. That's like ignoring cancer. It won't go away. California has and will continue to set the standard for gun control policy the nation over.

Everyone can do what they want with their money, but CTD won't be getting any of mine.

Go Navy
01-05-2011, 7:52 AM
Thanks for the link to the previous thread, which I had not seen. I see that CTD posted there on 8 Nov. 2010. Now, I ask CTD to post here again and explain their current policy controlling sales and shipments of ammo to Calif. customers. The notice on the front of catalog #401 can only be interpreted one way: that they will ship no ammo of any kind to Calif. customers.

Let's hear directly from CTD if they are a supporter.

javalos
01-05-2011, 8:01 AM
I've boycotted Cheaper Than Dirt anyway for a long time because they've refused to ship items that were perfectly legal in the state of California. Heck with them.

mtptwo
01-05-2011, 10:37 AM
CTD has always had issues with not shipping legal items to CA and other states. It is their butt they have to cover, so it makes sense for them. It also makes it a pain the butt for me, so I don't bother to do business with them. Off to Reno again.

xrMike
01-05-2011, 10:56 AM
Haven't bought anything from CTD in years and never will.

Even when it won't matter, when it's all you can do, you have to vote with your dollars.

Argonaut
01-05-2011, 11:08 AM
As I remember, There are several cities and counties (?) here that also have laws making mail order ammo of any type illegal in there jurisdiction. Don't blame the retailers for the bad laws we allowed to pass.............

Chris M
01-05-2011, 11:13 AM
OK guys, keep in mind that, under AB962, I don't know what "handgun ammo" is You don't know what "handgun ammo" is and the California Department of Justice doesn't know what "handgun ammo" is.

No one knows.

If I was an out of state business I would be terrified about shipping anything that could connected to firearms into California, even knowing A LOT about California firearm laws. I don't blame them.

I think it's just as much of a logical disconnect to blame them for this as it is for them to tell us to "just vote them out of office."

Exactly.

DOJ could include 30-06 as "Handgun Ammunition" because TC manufactures a handgun (Pro Hunter (http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=91601)) chambered in 30-06.

d sauce
01-05-2011, 11:16 AM
I wonder if they may change their attitude when they see how much money is no longer coming in from CA.

I personally like to bundle orders, so if I am buying a cleaning kit and gun sock, why not a box of 7.62x39 as well for good measure.

NoJoke
01-05-2011, 12:02 PM
In the mail today....
http://members.cox.net/ned946/cabelas%20ammo%20ban_Page_2.jpg

Salter77
01-05-2011, 12:22 PM
FML... :mad:

Bigtime1
01-05-2011, 12:37 PM
I received a CTD catalog the other day, too. I tossed it in the trash can without a second glance as soon as I recognized it.


WHAT?!?! You're missing out on a smokin' deal on a size small, pre-ban, Czecho reserve officer's sniper hair net!

Milsurp Collector
01-05-2011, 12:52 PM
California has and will continue to set the standard for gun control policy the nation over.



Are you serious? California is the model for gun control for the whole nation?

Other than a couple of other ban-friendly states, almost the entire nation is heading 180 away from the direction California is going.

The only way California sets a standard for gun control policy is as an example of what not to do, and what policies to avoid.

stix213
01-05-2011, 1:14 PM
Since inventive people have come up with handguns to chamber practically any rifle or shotgun round (Saiga 12 AOW anyone?), I can hate CTD's policy choice but I am sure it came straight from their lawyers to protect them from yet another bad California law. A business has to factor in how much risk they are willing to take, and with CTD being such a well known distributor they would be a likely target for a test case of this law.

motorhead
01-05-2011, 2:00 PM
CTD is notorious for inventing their own laws "just to be safe". after all, T/C used to make a .45/70 contender bbl. so that must be a handgun round.

Chris M
01-05-2011, 2:28 PM
after all, T/C used to make a .45/70 contender bbl. so that must be a handgun round.

Which is exactly why they're not going to sell ammo to CA while AB962 is in affect. It's called CYA. They don't want to deal with the legal troubles should rifle rounds be included as "Handgun Ammo". I, for one, don't blame them, and would do the exact same thing if I were in their shoes.

Cabelas is taking a slightly different approach, and ceasing all 'obvious' handgun ammo sales to CA - 9mm, .45acp, .40s&w, .357, etc...even though the bill doesn't name ANY ammo specifically.

emtmark
01-05-2011, 2:51 PM
My marlin lever action is chambered .357 man it sucks here........

thefitter
01-05-2011, 3:14 PM
Please note that CTD has joined us in the fight against AB962.
Refusing to sell any ammo to CA at all is being done for a reason.
The law is poorly written, vague and subject to legal challenge.
The game is on and this is part of it.
I do understand the frustration, but beating on CTD right now does not help.

Perhaps when CTD sees a victory here, they will loosen up some of their other no-sales-to-CA policies.

Explain this

Chris M
01-05-2011, 3:31 PM
Explain this

I think it has to do with lawsuits can't proceed until there is 'harm'. As of yet, no 'harm' has been done. After the law goes into affect, there will be 'harm', since it will prevent people from making purchases...

MasterYong
01-05-2011, 4:30 PM
Just another reason why Cheaper Than Dirt should never be supported for any reason at any time. If I can't order an AR charging handle from them, they sure as hell wouldn't have ever gotten my ammo money, even before AB962 passed. Cheaper than dirt are complicit in supporting California's gun control laws in that they intentionally choose to punish CA residents by "complying" with the laws to an extent beyond the written law itself.

They choose not to sell to us, not out of fear of liability or ambiguity in laws, but because they can and have written off California customers. Their recent "support" of anti-AB962 efforts is nothing but a PR grab to try and maintain their (almost surely) dying-off California customer base. They are large enough that they surely have much greater legal support than the average online (gun) retailer, yet they claim their lawyers can't make sense of our laws.

I don't care if Cheaper Than Dirt starts giving away free ammo tomorrow, I still wouldn't accept a product from them.

MasterYong
01-05-2011, 4:33 PM
CTD is notorious for inventing their own laws "just to be safe". after all, T/C used to make a .45/70 contender bbl. so that must be a handgun round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45-70#Sporting_use'

Sorry man, but it's as much a handgun round as .357 Mag is a rifle round. That's the problem with this law- no clarification of how to classify "handgun ammo."

Chris M
01-05-2011, 4:39 PM
Just another reason why Cheaper Than Dirt should never be supported for any reason at any time. If I can't order an AR charging handle from them, they sure as hell wouldn't have ever gotten my ammo money, even before AB962 passed. Cheaper than dirt are complicit in supporting California's gun control laws in that they intentionally choose to punish CA residents by "complying" with the laws to an extent beyond the written law itself.

They choose not to sell to us, not out of fear of liability or ambiguity in laws, but because they can and have written off California customers. Their recent "support" of anti-AB962 efforts is nothing but a PR grab to try and maintain their (almost surely) dying-off California customer base. They are large enough that they surely have much greater legal support than the average online (gun) retailer, yet they claim their lawyers can't make sense of our laws.

I don't care if Cheaper Than Dirt starts giving away free ammo tomorrow, I still wouldn't accept a product from them.

So, if you were 'in their shoes', you would continue to sell ammo to a state that can't even define what "Handgun Ammo" is? Step back, and look at this from their perspective. AB962 was very poorly written...it's way too vague. It's already been stated that DOJ could possibly try to determine that 30-06 and .270 are considered "Handgun Ammo" simply because there are handguns readily available that are chambered in these cartridges.

Regardless of what their stance was on other things in the past, I agree with their stance regarding AB962...and they could certainly be a key player in helping us destroy that bill. I don't see that as "supporting California's gun control laws" in any way whatsoever.

MasterYong
01-05-2011, 4:40 PM
So, if you were 'in their shoes', you would continue to sell ammo to a state that can't even define what "Handgun Ammo" is? Step back, and look at this from their perspective. AB962 was very poorly written...it's way too vague. It's already been stated that DOJ could possibly try to determine that 30-06 and .270 are considered "Handgun Ammo" simply because there are handguns readily available that are chambered in these cartridges.

Regardless of what their stance was on other things in the past, I agree with their stance regarding AB962...and they could certainly be a key player in helping us destroy that bill. I don't see that as "supporting California's gun control laws" in any way whatsoever.

Cheaper Than Dirt were worth less than dirt IMHO long before AB962 came along. This new "announcement" is just one more to add to the pile.

Notice that Cabela's isn't following suit?

Chris M
01-05-2011, 4:43 PM
Notice that Cabela's isn't following suit?

That's because Cabela's defined (in their own opinion) what "Handgun Ammo" is. This could possibly land them in some deep doo-doo should the DOJ decide that rifle ammo is "Handgun Ammo".

Go Navy
01-05-2011, 5:06 PM
Just ordered 500 rounds of Rem. brand 9mm online, from MidwayUSA, to be shipped to my Taxifornia address. The order went through. No notices popped up, yet, about handgun ammo and Taxifornia. I'm sure they'll comply, though, but it appears they haven't shut the window yet.

I've done the bulk of my online biz with Midway and am happy with them.

I foresee more attempts to restrict even local, face-to-face, sales of ammo under the new regime in Sacramento.

DavidRSA
01-05-2011, 5:09 PM
Just posted this in Palmetto's thread:

"California customers: Due to AB962, the last day to order any type of ammunition or reloading components will be January 20th"

http://www.palmettostatearmory.com/

bplvr
01-05-2011, 6:04 PM
another 'unconstitutionally vague' law.
.
.. sure to be tossed.

frankm
01-05-2011, 6:33 PM
Plametto's webpage is saying the same thing!

Darklyte27
01-05-2011, 6:36 PM
ya palmetto... please educate them quick.. they have good prices and low cost shipping

Kinsel83
01-05-2011, 6:40 PM
My order of 7.62x39 Wolf ammo from Sportsman Guide was canceled. it was on backorder till 2/15/11. So, you can just assume S.G.'s policies. I don't blame them but i guess I'll buy from some one else.

BluNorthern
01-05-2011, 7:10 PM
This sucks, but it's the price we pay for living in California. Gunowners are a 'fringe' element in this state, we have no political clout here and so the politicians are going to continue to come up with laws and restrictions on us. The voters in this state made it clear...they want Gavin Newsome and Kamala Harris, and the policies that they stand for,they don't want conservative values here. I think it's lousy that I'll have my options limited to what's available locally and lose the ability to shop for better prices, and soon have to deal with giving them my thumbprint. I can't blame CTD or Palmetto or any other vendors that refuse to sell to us, the law is unclear and why take the chance. I wish I was in a position to boycott this state by moving out of it. We just had a thread a bit ago...something like 725 new laws on the books here?! Screw it. It's not the vendors fault that we all live here in California.

bigmike82
01-05-2011, 11:27 PM
Screw CTD.

Seriously.

MasterYong
01-06-2011, 3:08 PM
That's because Cabela's defined (in their own opinion) what "Handgun Ammo" is. This could possibly land them in some deep doo-doo should the DOJ decide that rifle ammo is "Handgun Ammo".

Exactly. Cabela's (and their lawyers) have balls and integrity. I'd love to seem them chew up the DOJ and spit them out. The law is ambiguous to the point of being difficult to follow, a prosecution against a major retailer like Cabela's could never stand up in court.

Cabela's is, and as far as I know always has, supporting their CA customers as best as they are able. That's why I was defending them over CTD.

MasterYong
01-06-2011, 3:09 PM
Just posted this in Palmetto's thread:

"California customers: Due to AB962, the last day to order any type of ammunition or reloading components will be January 20th"

http://www.palmettostatearmory.com/

I thought reloading components weren't included in the law anymore?

Gotta go do some Googling now...

yelohamr
01-06-2011, 3:30 PM
I'm pretty well stocked up on .40 ammo, but use a lot of .22lr at the range. I sent an email to the company I buy from online and asked if they will still ship .22lr to CA after AB962 takes effect. There answer was, "Yes sir we will."
Not to create a problem for them, I won't mention the company name, but they are in Texas.

Librarian
01-06-2011, 3:55 PM
I thought reloading components weren't included in the law anymore?

Gotta go do some Googling now...

They never were, in the sense of being included in 'handgun ammunition' - see http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/2009_-_AB_962_De_Leon%2C_Ammunition

MasterYong
01-06-2011, 4:00 PM
They never were, in the sense of being included in 'handgun ammunition' - see http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/2009_-_AB_962_De_Leon%2C_Ammunition

So how is it that Palmetto isn't selling reloading components anymore?

I'm hoping its a distributor thing, like it's not worth the money for them to stock the components if they can't sell the ammo or something like that.

Cowboy T
01-06-2011, 5:04 PM
So, if you were 'in their shoes', you would continue to sell ammo to a state that can't even define what "Handgun Ammo" is? Step back, and look at this from their perspective. AB962 was very poorly written...it's way too vague. It's already been stated that DOJ could possibly try to determine that 30-06 and .270 are considered "Handgun Ammo" simply because there are handguns readily available that are chambered in these cartridges.

Regardless of what their stance was on other things in the past, I agree with their stance regarding AB962...and they could certainly be a key player in helping us destroy that bill. I don't see that as "supporting California's gun control laws" in any way whatsoever.

You nailed it, Chris. And .223/5.56 would be an even juicier ammo candidate because handguns chambered for it (the AR platform) are well known to the anti-gunners in power. They want anything even smacking of an AR-15 action ground up and melted down.

Remember, folks, there is already precedent for this type of situation. Does anyone recall Olympic Arms coming out with a 7.62x39 pistol? They were warned by everyone else not to do that, otherwise the cheap steel-core Chinese surplus ammo would likely get banned by US DOJ as "armor-piercing handgun ammunition". Well, Olympic didn't care and did it anyway. Sure enough, the US DOJ promptly banned that cheap source of ammunition. This happened in 1994.

http://www.thegunzone.com/762x39.html

So, don't think the CA DOJ folks wouldn't use this precedent to attack CTD or any other vendor of .223 ammunition through AB 962.

SteveH
01-06-2011, 5:19 PM
I think I'll boycott Cheaper Than Dirt on general principles. :mad:

I have not spent any money there in years. But this makes it even less likely I'll go back.

mrdd
01-06-2011, 6:02 PM
I am not sure how anyone can say that Cabela's is acting better than the other out of state vendors with respect to AB 962.

Cabela's official letter states states that AB 962 requires that they, an out of state vendor, must receive evidence of identity, and that:

"That evidence of identity, which must be legibly recorded at the time of delivery, includes:
The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee.
The brand, type and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
the purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and telephone number.
The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth."

The only reasonable interpretation of the record keeping requirement is that it applies to retail sales conducted in California. Furthermore, the law says:

"the records required by this section shall be maintained on the premises of the vendor for a period of not less than five years from the date of the recorded transfer." PC 12061(a) (4)

How can California possibly enforce this on an out of state vendor?

Librarian
01-06-2011, 6:51 PM
I am not sure how anyone can say that Cabela's is acting better than the other out of state vendors with respect to AB 962.

Cabela's official letter states states that AB 962 requires that they, an out of state vendor, must receive evidence of identity, and that:

"That evidence of identity, which must be legibly recorded at the time of delivery, includes:
The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee.
The brand, type and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
the purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and telephone number.
The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth."

The only reasonable interpretation of the record keeping requirement is that it applies to retail sales conducted in California. Furthermore, the law says:

"the records required by this section shall be maintained on the premises of the vendor for a period of not less than five years from the date of the recorded transfer." PC 12061(a) (4)

How can California possibly enforce this on an out of state vendor?

By suing them.

Whether they win or lose, the sellers have to defend themselves, and that costs $$.

It's threats and intimidation. The state has the whole of its population to tax to support its legal (mis)adventures; who has comparable resources to oppose them?

As a practical matter, of course, the State couldn't apply its whole budget to silly court cases, but it is, or would be, spending 'other people's money' while a privately held company could be driven out of business. That's why the FUD works - there's enough truth in the possibility that the risks start to look really big.

Don29palms
01-06-2011, 7:09 PM
"Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.

You are not concealing an AR 15 pistol or Contender Or Draco. It's definitely a BS law but it's hard to argue rifle ammo is "Handgun" ammo.

I personally will not buy anytihng from any company that refuses to sell legal items to me in California. I will continue to support companies that do.

I TOLD YOU SO!

Don29palms
01-06-2011, 7:12 PM
By suing them.

Whether they win or lose, the sellers have to defend themselves, and that costs $$.

It's threats and intimidation. The state has the whole of its population to tax to support its legal (mis)adventures; who has comparable resources to oppose them?



California is 28 BILLION dollars in the hole.

HowardW56
01-06-2011, 7:13 PM
California is 28 BILLION dollars in the hole.

THat hasn't stopped them from spending money foolishly....

mrdd
01-06-2011, 7:21 PM
By suing them.

That would be in federal court?

juvycop
01-06-2011, 8:12 PM
I haven't bought anything from CTD or Sportsman's guide in years because they both refuse to sell perfectly legal "assault rifle parts" to anyone in Commiefornia.

I sent both companies several emails a couple of years ago asking them why they refuse to sell legal parts to us in CA, especially when they boast about supporting the rights of gun owners. I didn't get a single response to any of my emails from either company (and I was a repeat customer for many years), so SCREW THEM BOTH.

Companies like that do not deserve any of my money. I will only buy firearm/shooting/hunting related products from companies that actually do support gun owner's rights.
Companies that use the excuse the law (AB962) is too vague and we don't know what is meant by "handgun ammunition" are full of bovine dung. Handgun ammunition is pretty clearly defined in California law, as stated in Don29palms' post above. If they really wanted our business they would contact DOJ and find out for sure what they can legally ship to California.

Cheaper Than Dirt
01-09-2011, 6:04 PM
We will continue to accept ammunition orders through January 21, 2011.

Our understanding is the judge will make a decision on the case on or before that day.

We are anticipating a ruling in 'our' favor, but if not, we will suspend all ammunition shipments to California until handgun ammunition is defined by the California DOJ.

vintagearms
01-09-2011, 6:19 PM
We will continue to accept ammunition orders through January 21, 2011.

Our understanding is the judge will make a decision on the case on or before that day.

We are anticipating a ruling in 'our' favor, but if not, we will suspend all ammunition shipments to California until handgun ammunition is defined by the California DOJ.

What about those with 03FFL's and COE's ?????

Bizcuits
01-09-2011, 7:33 PM
I stopped doing business with Sportsmen Guide and CTD, when they refused to sale me a Knoxx stock, because they were illegal in California. Yet the manufacture at the time was a California business and sold them here....

xounlistedxox
01-12-2011, 11:23 AM
CTD has always been on the far safe side when it comes to complying with CA law. They won't send anything that's even almost what they would consider "controversial". Pistol grips, collapsible stock etc. I stopped shopping with them right after I placed an order and they called me stating that they would not send these things to CA. CTD is nearly an enemy as far as I'm concerned.

arsilva32
01-12-2011, 1:39 PM
I've boycotted Cheaper Than Dirt anyway for a long time because they've refused to ship items that were perfectly legal in the state of California. Heck with them.



i agree there just useless, they never have shipped anything i needed. 90% of there catalog they wont ship to ca, i'm shocked they are even shipping the catalog to California.

stormy_clothing
01-12-2011, 3:56 PM
You guys are sounding pretty feminine in this post - the fact is ctd ships alot of things to CA and what they dont ship is easily available on many other sites - there selection of permissible items by there standards is large the prices on them low. crying like butt hurt children is lame - it's a forum for mature firearms owners not your ***** fest playground.

And anyone whose bothered by there policies should have stood up before they got saddled by the decisions of our tax funded leaders like this.

http://eslbee.com/calendar/peace/15protest-london2.jpg

xounlistedxox
01-12-2011, 4:00 PM
If they're going to comply with CA Law I'm all for it, but they go way overboard. They won't ship stuff here that we've been building with for nearly a decade already.