PDA

View Full Version : MidwayUSA won't honor C&R/COE exemption


kdm
01-09-2011, 11:36 AM
Through the course of the past year and a half, I've been e-mailing MidwayUSA in regards to the C&R/COE exemption to AB962. They finally committed to a firm response:



Dear KDM,

Thanks for your e-mail. I apologize, at this time we have no provisions in place to be able to honor the exemptions. I have passed your e-mail on to our department that deals with state regulations. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact us at 1-800-243-3220. Our hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. CT; Saturday and Sunday 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. CT. You may also email us at customerservice@midwayusa.com.

Thanks for Your Business!

Justin
MidwayUSA Customer Service



Looks like J&G is the only company, thus far, that'll honor the exemption.

foxtrotuniformlima
01-09-2011, 11:51 AM
WTF - They already have my C&R on file. What would be so difficult to add the COE ?

Carnivore
01-09-2011, 11:53 AM
No big surprise. I am more surprised anyone thinks companies will send ammo under any circumstances to Kalifornia.

Experimentalist
01-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Thanks for working this issue KDM. As I buy from MidwayUSA a fair bit, getting them to eventually recognize the C&R / COE exemption would be useful to me.

It does not appear that all is lost. They language of the letter says they haven't got it figured out yet. If you, I, and others start to hound them I suspect they might get it sorted out sooner.


Dear KDM,

Thanks for your e-mail. I apologize, at this time we have no provisions in place to be able to honor the exemptions. ...

razorx
01-09-2011, 12:13 PM
If I was Midway, would wait till sometime at end of January to accept COE in order to drive ammo sales as much as possible by the 21st.

We'll see. Only reason I have my COE is for this...

Serpentine
01-09-2011, 12:29 PM
Give business's a chance to adjust by allowing them some time to figure out how to be in compliance with our state laws.

We don't even know what's clearly in the law yet.

Midway is not trying to "deny" you, but merely trying to understand compliance issues. That takes time.

.

trautert
01-09-2011, 12:31 PM
I just sent them an email to the gist of: Your business; do what you want. Don't work with us; don't expect any more of my money.

Serpentine
01-09-2011, 12:45 PM
I just sent them an email to the gist of: Your business; do what you want. Don't work with us; don't expect any more of my money.

How do you know if they are trying to work with us or not?

The law isn't even clear to us yet.

Keep in mind they have to be in compliance with 49 other states, and within those states, there are a multitude of county and city ordinances. Can you imagine the battery of lawyers they must have to employ to bring ammo and accessories to your front door?

The blame is not on them. They didn't create AB962.

.

Plisk
01-09-2011, 1:04 PM
I wonder if they're going to honor FFL/Re-Sale companies for ammunition. We purchase ammunition from Midway.

kdm
01-09-2011, 1:26 PM
I agree with you 100%, Serpentine...they might very well be verifying a work-around.

I'm kinda torn, though...they've had a year and a half to investigate the in's and out's of 962. Why would they only *now* start to determine a way to deal with Cali and its large ammo consumption base? My opinion is they'll simply write us off, based soley on their procrastination. If they're trying to drum up a sales spike, as razorx suggests, well...that's kinda a sneaky tactic.

trautert
01-09-2011, 1:29 PM
The part about the C&R/COE isn't unclear. The rest of the law may be, but the exemption should clear it. You guys go ahead and make excuses for people. I don't have to.

Legasat
01-09-2011, 1:38 PM
I would be surprised if you found ANY of the larger suppliers that would honor this exemption. It's much easier and far more efficient for them just make a blanket policy.

I have my C&R registered with them as well. I have thought about getting a COE for this purpose, but I'm faily sure no one will do the research and take the chance that they are correct.

Serpentine
01-09-2011, 1:47 PM
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Some are acting like this is something new and unusual - that manufacturers, distributors, retailers, out-of-state private sellers and dealers are reluctant or hesitant to deal with CA. There is a LONG historical list of this eventful process on CA restrictions.

Hopefully, AB962 will be reconsidered as to it's constitutionality on January 18th in Sacramento - thanks to CGF and affiliates - and we won't have to be concerned about this further.

I'm confident that CGF is on this diligently with validity questions and concerns. We should have more clarity - shortly.



.

microwaveguy
01-09-2011, 1:57 PM
The part about the C&R/COE isn't unclear. The rest of the law may be, but the exemption should clear it. You guys go ahead and make excuses for people. I don't have to.

Look at 12318(c)(6) , this offers the exemption in plain langage


(6) Persons licensed as collectors of firearms pursuant to Chapter
44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States
Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto whose licensed
premises are within this state who has a current certificate of
eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 12071.

Serpentine
01-09-2011, 2:34 PM
As an analogy; if you called to purchase medical insurance right now, I can guarantee you that you will not find an insurance company that can honestly sell you a policy fully based and integrated with the The Affordable Care Act signed into law March 2010.

After all this time, the agents and companies still have no complete and definitive clarification - only bits and pieces that change daily.

.

dfletcher
01-09-2011, 4:01 PM
I don't know what they'll do, but my experience is they default to no when other vendors may not. I got a similar letter from Potterfield directly (at least that was the sig block) regarding sending reloading components or ammo to SF. I suppose giving them time may change that but perhaps better is letting them know other vendors are honoring the C & R/COE.

Not to get too far ahead, but maybe folks who have their C & Rs there (I do) and get those nice discounts may have to let Midway know they may not shop there anymore? I'd presume Midway is sophisticated enough to be able to determine a large drop in business (non-ammo related) in CA.

But like others have said, wait a bit, bug them a bit & see if they can adjust.

GrizzlyGuy
01-09-2011, 4:20 PM
Keep in mind that major retailers have another issue to contend with: their IT systems and business processes. It seems simple but it actually takes a bit of work to modify the system to conditionally accept or reject a CA ammo order as follows:

1) Is the customer in CA?
2) If YES, are they ordering "handgun ammo"?
3) If YES, then do we have both a FFL and COE on file for this particular customer?
4) If YES, then are both the FFL and COE that we have on file current (not expired)?

Little guys have little or no IT systems or formal procedures, so it is easy for them to make a change. The major retailers... not so much.

Paul S
01-09-2011, 4:38 PM
While we worry and work on whether our various vendors will honor the C&R/COE exemption I am concerned that all those efforts will go for naught because shippers (FedEx, UPS etc) will simply refuse to deliver ANY ammunition and/or reloading supplies to the PRK.

Of course I still hope and pray our cause prevails in court but I am afraid to make book on that.

Paul

wildhawker
01-09-2011, 4:47 PM
While we worry and work on whether our various vendors will honor the C&R/COE exemption I am concerned that all those efforts will go for naught because shippers (FedEx, UPS etc) will simply refuse to deliver ANY ammunition and/or reloading supplies to the PRK.

Of course I still hope and pray our cause prevails in court but I am afraid to make book on that.

Paul

The law's provisions affecting commercial carriers will fall, if nothing else, even if other provisions are upheld in the NRA/CRPA's state challenge (Parker).

Eljay
01-09-2011, 5:03 PM
I agree with you 100%, Serpentine...they might very well be verifying a work-around.

I'm kinda torn, though...they've had a year and a half to investigate the in's and out's of 962. Why would they only *now* start to determine a way to deal with Cali and its large ammo consumption base? My opinion is they'll simply write us off, based soley on their procrastination. If they're trying to drum up a sales spike, as razorx suggests, well...that's kinda a sneaky tactic.

If I were them I'd wait for the last minute. I'd feel pretty irritated if we had lots of meetings, ran ideas past lawyers to verify everything, put procedures in place, adjusted the online system to handle whatever small number of CA residents are set up for this... and then Jan 18th there's an injunction and it was all just wasted effort and money.

taperxz
01-09-2011, 5:04 PM
My take on this thing is pretty clear.

Use of a Credit/ debit card via internet or phone to an out of state vendor is a POS. Point of sale. This transaction took place out of state. You, the buyer, then also pay for a shipper to send it to you. You are sending your ammo to you! I don't see where ab 962 stops us from internet or phone sales out of state?

When you purchase and out of state product you are subject to that states laws regarding refunds and returns. That is proof that the trans took place out of state.

I have a bit of knowledge regarding credit and debit cards;)