AB 2521 July 08 FFL's must obtain DOJ permission

[spaceburger]

Visiting my friendly neighborhood FFL last night. He had just received notification form DOJ yesterday as follows:

DOJ Information Bulletin 2007-BF-01 dated 3/7/07
AB 2521 (Stats. 2006, ch. 784) (Jones)

"As of July 1, 2008, requires both in-state and out of state FFLs to obtain approval (a unique verification number) from the California Department of Justice (CDOJ) prior to shipping firearms to any California FFL (PC 12072). A subsequent DOJ Information Bulletin will be forwarded regarding this new law".

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't this create an absolute chokehold on any transfer of weapons between FFLs within or into CA.?

[SemiAutoSam]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery

[jmlivingston]

I'm sure a lot of us would like to see a copy of this. So far there's nothing posted on the DoJ FD website about this, but I haven't looked for the pending legislation yet.

John

[spaceburger]

I just scanned the bulletin. PM me with your email adress and I will send it to you to post.

[Prc329]

http://www.nssf.org/pdf/ab_2728_bill_20060417_amended_asm.pdf

Looks like it was proposed last year.

[bwiese]

It did pass last year apparently. I think NRA didn't oppose it for some tactical reason.

This is not 'approval', just tracking. CA Dealers are already computerized anyway and outside FFLs will just get on CAs list.

There may be some hidden benefits here (I gotta read the fine print).

This could also be a throwaway bill for some somewhat friendly politicians to vote for to act like they're antigun.

[jmlivingston]

Okay, I received a scanned copy of the bulletin to share with you.

It's right here (http://www.jmlivingston.com/ToShare/DOJbulletin2007_BF_01.pdf).

This certainly looks like something that occured pre- Jerry Brown BTW.

John

[6172crew]

http://www.nssf.org/pdf/ab_2728_bill_20060417_amended_asm.pdf

Looks like it was proposed last year.


AB2728 was passed but I dont see AB2521, which page are you seeing this?

PS: John your scan copy is asking for a login.

[jmlivingston]

Complete bill history:


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_bill_20060929_history.html

[jmlivingston]

PS: John your scan copy is asking for a login.

Okay, it's fixed now. That's what I get for hurrying.....

[DrjonesUSA]

I haven't read the text, but based on the blurb provided by the original poster, doesn't that mean that the CA DOJ could refuse to approve, oh, say, FFL's that ship OLLs and simliar undesirable rifles into the state???

[bwiese]

I haven't read the text, but based on the blurb provided by the original poster, doesn't that mean that the CA DOJ could refuse to approve, oh, say, FFL's that ship OLLs and simliar undesirable rifles into the state???

Um there's all sorts of interstate commerce stuff that comes into play :)

I think these will be granted pro-forma. This seems to be a tracking thing, not a restriction.

We'll see how DOJ implements the regulations & policies to support this.

[spaceburger]

the words "obtain approval" does not imply tracking.

[SemiAutoSam]

I just spoke to the guy in Jones office and he said there was no opposition to this law. Its real interesting how those that work in the mechanics of law making do not seem outraged about this what so ever. The guy I spoke to was very calm and just a swell guy.

If I worked in the LEG office I would be outraged and would most likely get my *** fired for my opposition to everything that these REPS of ours passed.

COMPLETE BILL HISTORY


BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 2521
AUTHOR : Jones
TOPIC : Firearms.

TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2006
Sept. 29 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 784, Statutes of 2006.
Sept. 29 Approved by the Governor.
Sept. 19 Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:45 p.m.
Aug. 31 Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 51. Noes 27.
Page 7570.)
Aug. 30 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
Aug. 30 Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 27. Noes 13. Page
5426.)
Aug. 28 Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading.
Aug. 24 Read third time, passage refused. (Ayes 18. Noes 10. Page 5213.)
Motion to reconsider made by Senator Lowenthal. Reconsideration
granted. (Page 5213.)
Aug. 15 Read second time. To third reading.
Aug. 14 Read third time, amended. To second reading.
June 28 Read second time. To third reading.
June 27 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 4.).
June 15 Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
June 14 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on
APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.).
May 31 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on PUB. S. (Corrected June 2. )
May 25 Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
May 11 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
May 11 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 51. Noes 26. Page
5382.)
May 8 Read second time. To third reading.
May 4 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 3).
Apr. 20 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Apr. 19 Read second time and amended.
Apr. 18 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on
APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 2.) (April 17).
Apr. 6 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P.
Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 4).
Mar. 28 Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Mar. 27 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
Mar. 14 Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and B. & P.
Feb. 24 From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.
Feb. 23 Read first time. To print.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_bill_20060929_history.html

[bwiese]

No one knows or will speak about it but I really wonder if a few votes on this bill were traded off to get receiver language out of 2728, or for one of the ammo bills to be killed.

Sometimes you have to give your friends something to vote for so they look antigun.

[HowardW56]

Visiting my friendly neighborhood FFL last night. He had just received notification form DOJ yesterday as follows:

DOJ Information Bulletin 2007-BF-01 dated 3/7/07
AB 2521 (Stats. 2006, ch. 784) (Jones)

"As of July 1, 2008, requires both in-state and out of state FFLs to obtain approval (a unique verification number) from the California Department of Justice (CDOJ) prior to shipping firearms to any California FFL (PC 12072). A subsequent DOJ Information Bulletin will be forwarded regarding this new law".

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't this create an absolute chokehold on any transfer of weapons between FFLs within or into CA.?

I suggest that you read the bill as chaptered.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf)

Maybe someone that is smarter than I am will understand the full impact…

[bwiese]

I suggest that you read the bill as chaptered.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf)

Maybe someone that is smarter than I am will understand the full impact…

A *very* brief read seems like this is just some handwaving around DROS process. Extra hassle, but not really permission per se - since they can't keep track of rifle info and already keep track of handgun info in DROS process, all this really does is give permission to do the transaction with a verified FFL.

The guns themselves don't come under addtional scrutiny.

[chiefcrash]

even if the DOJ has no authority to deny out of state dealers their little unique number that lends them send stuff here, how likely do you think it will be that they might drag their feet and loose paperwork for dealers that will send OLLs?

[bwiese]

Guys, I think there were some good tactical and strategic reasons NRA didn't oppose this ;)

[luvtolean]

A *very* brief read seems like this is just some handwaving around DROS process. Extra hassle, but not really permission per se - since they can't keep track of rifle info and already keep track of handgun info in DROS process, all this really does is give permission to do the transaction with a verified FFL.

The guns themselves don't come under addtional scrutiny.

Sounds to me like the net effect is more expensive guns.

I can't imagine CA FFLs opposing this, in fact, I'd see them supporting it as it helps them.

[Prc329]

AB2728 was passed but I dont see AB2521, which page are you seeing this?

PS: John your scan copy is asking for a login.

My bad, I read that wrong :)

A coordinated effort by NSSF and the California Association of Firearms Retailers, with tremendous support from the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California and the National Rifle Association, led to an important legislative victory August 29, 2006, as a California Department of Justice-backed, burdensome, anti-business, hidden tax amendment was stripped from an Assembly Bill (AB 2521). The amendment would have allowed the California Department of Justice to greatly increase transaction fees to firearms dealers.

http://www.nafr.org/CA_Issues.cfm

Fourth one down

[SemiAutoSam]

Any idea what those reasons are?

the way I see it If they (the DOJ) do not want a specific gin being transferred it does not get transferred from within or outside of California.

Guys, there were reasons NRA didn't oppose this ;)

[bwiese]

Any idea what those reasons are?

Guessing, no one will talk about this,
Horsetrading to avoid something worse and getting the bad stuff taken out of the bill; plus some on-the-fence legislators can vote for this and get antigun credits and vote against far worse bills (ammo bill, etc.)

the way I see it If they (the DOJ) do not want a specific gun being transferred it does not get transferred from within or outside of California.

There is no control or info over the type/make/model of gun - unless it's a handgun and that is known already (for the last 17 years). It's transaction based, and a number comes over the DROS system.

[Prc329]

if I'm reading this correctly, before an 01FFL had to get either a unique verification number or fax some sort of exemption letter to the DOJ everytime they sent a weapon into the state. The new law means they need a unique number every time and the exemption is no longer taken?

My only real confusion is does this unique number or exemption ally to each transfer or just an authorization to transfer anything period? Also it appears it will create a centralized database of all CA FFLs.

[jmlivingston]

This discussion is vaguely reminiscent about something that happened a while back about FFL03's having to register with the DoJ which never happened due to a lack of funding. Any chance this is related, maybe excluding the FFL03 and making the 01's do it instead?

I'm not to sure on this, just thinking and tossing it out there....

John

[bwiese]

This discussion is vaguely reminiscent about something that happened a while back about FFL03's having to register with the DoJ which never happened due to a lack of funding. Any chance this is related, maybe excluding the FFL03 and making the 01's do it instead?

I'm not to sure on this, just thinking and tossing it out there....


Ah yes, perhaps there needs to be enabling legislation to turn on the money.

[Rumpled]

Won't this just make more out of state FFL's hesitant to do business with CA?
More creeping incrementalism.

I don't know what NRA traded, but I don't like any further restrtictions.
Would this be for every single weapon? Or a one time thing per FFL?
Cost to get "permission"?
Does this apply to 03FFL's?

[bwiese]

I don't know what NRA traded, but I don't like any further restrtictions.


Duh. If something like this did happen they tried to pick the best option, I'm sure.

But maybe you wanted that ammo bill passed instead.

[Rumpled]

Duh. If something like this did happen they tried to pick the best option, I'm sure.

But maybe you wanted that ammo bill passed instead.

Of course, the one where all ammo I desire is shipped free to me!:D

The devil will be of course, be in the details.

[xenophobe]

With an understaffed Department of Firearms at the DOJ, this will only delay transactions. It appears it might even give DOJ right of refusal to do a transfer they think is illegal (read: no more off-list receivers).

It says nothing about issuing unique transaction #'s on a compulsory basis, so this bill has me really worried.

This is much worse legislation than AB2111, and worse than SB-15, IMO.

I know this isn't actually part of the law, but describing what it does:

The bill would authorize, commencing January 1, 2008, the department
to assess an annual fee upon those licensees for purposes of maintaining
the list and for other enforcement and compliance costs. The bill would
provide that those licensees may not import or receive firearms unless they
are listed on the centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees or exempted firearms manufacturers.

[bwiese]

Here is the DOJ bulletin discussing this. It's about 7 days old.

3020

[xenophobe]

So what the law can do is allow DOJ discretion as to which FFL is approved RSR or Davidsons or Ruger for example, but deny to CWS, DD's or Smith & Wesson.

And what information is required by the DOJ? If it requires a make, model and serial number, this is underground registration of long arms, as they will maintain records, and it also states that a dealer must maintain additional records.

So the only firearms exempt are the ones currently sitting on a dealer's shelf or in a private individual's collection.

Wow... how did this one slip by? :(

[SemiAutoSam]

As I see it the "CLOCK IS TICKING" Countdown to July 2008 until there will be no more freedoms to bring into California what ever long gun we want.

In my estimation this law will help DOJ keep a tighter watch on dealers that have brought in things that they don't want in California. Not that they are illegal here but that doj does not approve the ticket of a FFL that does what they tell him not to do.

IMHO this little item puts us one step closer to the "TRIPWIRE".

[jmlivingston]

Here is the DOJ bulletin discussing this. It's about 7 days old.

3020

This appears to be a MS-Word version of the same document I previously posted.

John

[bwiese]

This appears to be a MS-Word version of the same document I previously posted.

John

Sorry, I didn't see your orig post on it.

[jmlivingston]

Bill, nothing to apologize for. I just wanted to let people know that it's the same thing, and not something new or different.

[DrjonesUSA]

Does this in any way affect private individuals shipping CA-legal guns into CA?

A cursory reading of the bill tells me it doesn't, but who knows....

What I'd really like to know is how the *hell* did this slip by????

[SemiAutoSam]

We weren't keeping a close enough watch on the state Legislature web pages and or other state documents, Publications that announce the state laws that are introduced.

In a nutshell we got complacent in our drunken stupor thinking we won.

Well in this persons opinion we got the shaft back almost a year ago and didn't know till today.

Does this in any way affect private individuals shipping CA-legal guns into CA?

A cursory reading of the bill tells me it doesn't, but who knows....

What I'd really like to know is how the *hell* did this slip by????

[hoffmang]

If it were to become discretionary, this bill would not survive a commerce clause challenge. As long as all FFLs can send anything legal into the state without undue hassle beyond getting the number, it would survive scrutiny.

-Gene

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Apparently this was going on at the same time AB 352 (Microstamping) Koretz and AB 2728 Klehs (Compliance Inspections) was happening. http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1304

From here,
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery

My Progun Representative (Parra) voted for it so it must be a good thing.

Vick
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_vote_20060831_0816PM_asm_floor.html

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 2521
AUTHOR: Jones
TOPIC: Firearms.
DATE: 08/31/2006
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: AB 2521 Jones Concurrence in Senate Amendments
(AYES 51. NOES 27.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Arambula Baca Bass Berg
Bermudez Calderon Canciamilla Chan
Chavez Chu Cohn Coto
Daucher De La Torre Dymally Evans
Frommer Goldberg Hancock Jerome Horton
Shirley Horton Jones Karnette Klehs
Koretz Laird Leno Levine
Lieber Lieu Liu Matthews
Montanez Mullin Nation Nava
Negrete McLeod Oropeza Parra Pavley
Richman Ridley-Thomas Ruskin Saldana
Salinas Spitzer Torrico Vargas
Wolk Yee Nunez


NOES
****

Aghazarian Benoit Blakeslee Bogh
Cogdill DeVore Emmerson Garcia
Haynes Houston Huff Keene
La Malfa La Suer Leslie Maze
McCarthy Mountjoy Nakanishi Niello
Plescia Sharon Runner Strickland Tran
Villines Walters Wyland


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************

Umberg Vacancy

[bwiese]

Apparently this was going on at the same time AB 352 (Microstamping) Koretz and AB 2728 Klehs (Compliance Inspections) was happening. http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1304

From here,
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery

My Progun Representative (Parra) voted for it so it must be a good thing.

Vick


I think so. I think some bills are 'bait & cover' bills to give wavering middle-grounders something that can be perceived as antigun to vote on so they don't have to vote antigun on the seriously bad bills (AB352, SB357, CRPA/Torrico's ammo bill, etc).

[Can'thavenuthingood]

The vote for this AB 2521 was on 31 august while we were all watching and listening. This thing is even labeled Firearms.

Did anyone here on Calguns hear it presented and voted?
Was there a previous discussion of this critter by us or them?

If we missed this we need to plug that hole.

Searching now.

Vick

[Can'thavenuthingood]

First mention I found is here by Inoxmark @ 04-20-2006, 12:37 PM

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=32343&page=2&highlight=2521

Vick

[SemiAutoSam]

Post 20


In the meantime AB 2521, virtually identical to AB 754 vetoed by Arnold last year, is flying completely under NRA radar, already managed to clear two committees with no opposition, without being even listed on NRA list of CA firearm related legislation.

Just to remind, that bill would require FFL dealers to obtain authorization from CA DOJ prior to shipping a firearm to CA FFL, federal FFL is not enough anymore. We could kiss out-of-state transfers goodbye if this gets through, for sure.
We should not rely on the gov vetoing this thing again, this fall Arnold might not be in position to veto anything.


First mention I found is here by Inoxmark @ 04-20-2006, 12:37 PM

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=32343&page=2&highlight=2521

Vick

[SemiAutoSam]

Did you notice no one replied to Inoxmark when he posted about this bill.




http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_cfa_20060502_170712_asm_comm.html



BILL ANALYSIS AB 2521
Page 1

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2006

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair

AB 2521 (Jones) - As Amended: April 19, 2006

Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Business and Professions 8-2

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY

This bill requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to obtain a
unique verification number from the Department of Justice (DOJ)
before delivering a gun to a FFL in California beginning July 1,
2008, requires DOJ to maintain a centralized list of exempt
federal firearms licensees (CLEFFL) as of January 1, 2008, and
sets forth requirements for dealers to be included on the
CLEFFL. Specifically, this bill:

1)Requires any person who intends to deliver, sell or transfer a
gun, as specified, to obtain from the DOJ a verification
number via the Internet for the delivery.

2)Requires that to be included on the CLEFFL, an applicant must:
a) possess a valid FFL as a dealer, importer or manufacturer;
b) possess a valid certificate of eligibility; and c) maintain
with the DOJ a signed declaration regarding the applicant's
statutory exemption from the licensing requirements. Any
person who furnishes false information is guilty of a
misdemeanor.

3)Allows the DOJ to remove any person from any of the
centralized list for failing to comply with any of the listed
specifications.

FISCAL EFFECT

1)Costs fully covered by fees. This bill authorizes DOJ,
effective January 1, 2008, to assess a $115 annual fee to
cover the costs of maintaining the CLEFFL and the cost of

AB 2521
Page 2

maintaining the gun shipment verification number. The DOJ may
increase the fee at a rate not to exceed the increase in the
California Consumer Price Index.

DOJ estimates the fee will increase Dealer Record of Sale
(DROS) revenue by about $100,000, which combined with the fees
paid by FFLs for background checks, will cover the costs of
this measure.

2)Minor nonreimbursable local incarceration costs, to the extent
the new misdemeanors result in increased local incarceration.

AB 2521
Page 3

COMMENTS

1)Background/Rationale . According to the author and sponsor
(DOJ), in recent years, FFLs, and those posing fraudulently as
FFL holders, could easily circumvent California's gun
regulations by claiming to out-of-state gun vendors that they
held an FFL. Vendors, who are not required to verify the
authenticity of a licensee, would then ship guns with no
notification to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) or DOJ. This process allowed potentially
thousands of guns to be distributed in California that have
been used in crimes.

In 2002, AB 2080 (Steinberg), Statutes of 1992 was enacted as
an attempt to deter illegal firearms traffickers. AB 2080
sought to allow DOJ to monitor gun shipments to ensure
recipients could lawfully engage in gun transactions. This
program would have required vendors to obtain unique
verification numbers from DOJ for gun shipments and provide
that information to recipients. Due to an alleged fiscal
shortfall, however, at the time the measure was passed, DOJ
opted not to implement AB 2080.

According to DOJ, however, even if AB 2080 had been
implemented, the solution was faulty, as it contained a
loophole that would have allowed FFL holders (and those posing
as FFL holders) to circumvent the law by allowing recipients
to exempt themselves from the verification process by
claiming, without any verification, that they were wholesalers
or importers.

Last year, the Legislature passed AB 754 (Jones), a measure
similar to AB 2521, designed to close the loophole in the
current law. The governor vetoed AB 754 stating that it
duplicated provisions of federal law. AB 2521 is drafted to
address the governor's concerns by requiring DOJ to
collaborate with ATF to ensure FFL holders are not subject to
duplicative inspections or regulations. In addition, these
amendments highlight the fact that an FFL holder will undergo
a continuous background check by requiring the holder to
possess a certificate of eligibility. Currently, FFL holders
can engage in firearms transactions without having to pass a
California background check. This loophole allows FFL holders
who are prohibited from possessing guns under California law
to continue to engage in transactions.

AB 2521
Page 4


2)2005 Veto Message . "This bill is unnecessary because federal
authorities currently can check transactions between federally
licensed firearm dealers. This bill will add another layer of
bureaucracy by requiring an additional check at the state
level. There is no documentation that creating this additional
layer of monitoring at the state level will result in a public
safety benefit that is not currently derived from the federal
system."


Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

[xenophobe]

If it were to become discretionary, this bill would not survive a commerce clause challenge. As long as all FFLs can send anything legal into the state without undue hassle beyond getting the number, it would survive scrutiny.

Well, with Roberti-Roos, AW Permits and such were supposed to be issued to people who wanted to buy or own AWs, but since it wasn't specified in the law, they regulated them away from issuing unless you had a specific need.

I don't see anywhere in that bill where anything is compulsory, and by the phrasing of a few things, it seems like DOJ will have final say if a firearm is allowable or not.

Seems like a way for them to keep track of what comes in too.

[triggerhappy]

AAAAAAAAAH! That isn't even English, dangit!! Seriously, what the hell is THIS: "Allows the delivery of a handgun by a dealer to a purchaser despite the fact, during the pendency of the DROS, the handgun is removed from the roster of not unsafe handguns due to nonpayment (PC 12131)??? Is this like double-plus ungood?

I wanna find the morons that do this kind of thing and force them to live under their own bureauacracy. Stuff like this is why I really don't CARE what's legal or not. If it ain't obviously a felony, I don't give a rip. What's the point?

rant over, I'm tired

[xenophobe]

Okay, so there will be another charge to add on top of DROS.

It's a state sponsored scam to make more money by making a dealer pay for an 'authorization number' for each firearm that is shipped to him...

Just... Wow...

[xenophobe]

Wow... the NRA should have ignored the microstamping bill instead of this one.

At least the microstamping bill, once enacted, would show everyone exactly how this technology can't work. So instead of having a useless bill introduced, we have this one that severely limits transactions, and introduces a new fee to be added on top of the DROS that the DOJ already charges. Nice.

There better be good explanation of why this bill was passed without opposition....:mad: :mad: :mad:

[hoffmang]

Roberti-Roos doesn't impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way. This could if it isn't implemented as effectively shall issue.

-Gene

[SemiAutoSam]

SO if a guy in Nevada has a RR banned rifle and I would like to purchase it and because of RR I cannot that doesn't impact interstate commerce ?



in·ter·state (ĭn'tər-stāt')
adj.
Involving, existing between, or connecting two or more states.

n.

Roberti-Roos doesn't impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way. This could if it isn't implemented as effectively shall issue.

-Gene

[Telpierion]

1)2)Requires that to be included on the CLEFFL, an applicant must:
a) possess a valid FFL as a dealer, importer or manufacturer;
b) possess a valid certificate of eligibility; and c) maintain
with the DOJ a signed declaration regarding the applicant's
statutory exemption from the licensing requirements. Any
person who furnishes false information is guilty of a
misdemeanor.

Am I correct in reading this to say C&R holders will no longer be allowed to recieve rifles?

[DIG]

They're coming for our rights at all angles. What is it going to take to stop them from stealing our rights? When we have no rights? Seriously, WHO is the real threat here? They're just forcing this stuff underground. It'll be like the "war on drugs". Look at how they're doing on that one :rolleyes:

[xenophobe]

Roberti-Roos doesn't impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way.

Yes, it does impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way. Assault weapons may not be purchased by or transferred to individuals within the state. Legislative intent was to issue permits to those who wished to collect, own or sell them. After-the-fact regulatory implementation halted any normal commerce on items deemed 'assault weapons' and prevented issuance of permits unless a specific 'needs' could be demonstrated.

What this new law appears to do is go far beyond discriminating, but completely regulates interstate commerce.

[jemaddux]

Just for everyone knows, I just ran into this this week. DOJ has already told some that this is in place already. I ordered two 1943 German Mausers from a company and they told me they are waiting for approval from DOJ before shipping and I have now been waiting a week for them to ship. My rep there said that if this keeps up they are going to as a company ban all sales to California because it cost them to much in the way of man hours.:mad:

And as some know I am still waiting for a letter from DOJ on the WASR 22. Its only been three months. What do you think they are going to do when say Cold War wants to ship to a FFL here? They would of course just give a approval number and tell them to ship it right???????

[xenophobe]

Just for everyone knows, I just ran into this this week. DOJ has already told some that this is in place already. I ordered two 1943 German Mausers from a company and they told me they are waiting for approval from DOJ before shipping and I have now been waiting a week for them to ship. My rep there said that if this keeps up they are going to as a company ban all sales to California because it cost them to much in the way of man hours.:mad:

And as some know I am still waiting for a letter from DOJ on the WASR 22. Its only been three months. What do you think they are going to do when say Cold War wants to ship to a FFL here? They would of course just give a approval number and tell them to ship it right???????

Sorry to hear about that J. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. It effectively bans any firearm DOJ doesn't want in the state using their discretion... :(

[jemaddux]

Yes, it does impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way. Assault weapons may not be purchased by or transferred to individuals within the state. Legislative intent was to issue permits to those who wished to collect, own or sell them. After-the-fact regulatory implementation halted any normal commerce on items deemed 'assault weapons' and prevented issuance of permits unless a specific 'needs' could be demonstrated.

What this new law appears to do is go far beyond discriminating, but completely regulates interstate commerce.

This is the same line that is already being used. When I applied for my AW permit here for motion picture use I was denied. I showed my paycheck stubs, letters from producers and other propmasters and was told they saw no need and felt that there was really no proof that I really did work in the motion picture industry and told me to reapply again with more proof and another check for livescan. Thats all they are going to do, what kind of firearm is this??? Oh, well let us see if that would be legal for sale here in California and we will get back to you. After enough of that, dealers out of state are just going to say forget it.

[Paratus et Vigilans]

This is the same line that is already being used. When I applied for my AW permit here for motion picture use I was denied. I showed my paycheck stubs, letters from producers and other propmasters and was told they saw no need and felt that there was really no proof that I really did work in the motion picture industry and told me to reapply again with more proof and another check for livescan. Thats all they are going to do, what kind of firearm is this??? Oh, well let us see if that would be legal for sale here in California and we will get back to you. After enough of that, dealers out of state are just going to say forget it.

After ONCE of that, or even before it happens once and is only threatened, we have a Federal Court system that can be brought into the equation.

[SemiAutoSam]

Gene

Can you bring litigation against the state.

There seems to be a consensus here that the state is getting in the way of commerce.

How much would it cost to get our rights back ?

[Ford8N]

When will all this nonsense end?

[jemaddux]

This is some of the other stuff that people should look at. This is a approved list for sale here in California from Ruger. All of them in red are set to expire this year. With all the changes going on how many do you think Ruger is going to spend money on to get them listed again? They have 48 other states to sell to, it really would save them money not to have to deal with all this.:mad: I have been saying this over and over again. If there is something you want out there, NOW is the time to get it and have it because you may not get another chance at any of this here.



KMK10 (Mark II Target) / Stainless Steel Pistol 10" .22 LR 12/31/2007
MK10 / Blue Steel Pistol 10" .22 LR 12/31/2007
P4 / Blue Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" .22 LR 12/31/2007 P4MKIII / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" .22 LR 2/24/2008
KP45HMKIII / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.5" .22 LR 1/31/2008
KMK4 / Stainless Steel Pistol 4.75" .22 LR 12/31/2007
KP4 / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.75" .22 LR 12/31/2007
MK4 / Blue Steel Pistol 4.75" .22 LR 12/31/2007
MK4NRA / Blue Steel Pistol 4.75" .22 LR 7/10/2007 MKIII4 / Steel Pistol 4.8" .22 LR 2/24/2008
KMK512 (Mark II Target) / Stainless Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 12/31/2007
KMK512GCUS / Stainless Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 6/18/2007
KMKIII512 / Stainless Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 8/20/2007
KP512 (22/45 Target) / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 12/31/2007 KP512MKIII / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 2/24/2008
MK512 / Blue Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 12/31/2007
MK512GCL / Blue Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 3/19/2008
MKIII512 / Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 8/10/2007
P512 / Blue Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 12/31/2007
P512MKIII / Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 2/3/2008
KMK6 (Mark II) / Stainless Steel Pistol 6" .22 LR 12/31/2007
MK6 / Blue Steel Pistol 6" .22 LR 12/31/2007 MKIII6 / Steel Pistol 6" .22 LR 2/24/2008
KMKIII678GC / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.75" .22 LR 2/3/2008
KMK678 / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 12/31/2007
KMK678G / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 12/31/2007
KMK678GC / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 12/31/2007
KMKIII678H / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 2/3/2008
MK678 / Blue Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 12/31/2007
MK678G / Blue Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 12/31/2007
P678GC (22/45 Comp. Target) / Blue Steel, Polymer Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 12/31/2007
KP678HMKIII / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 6.875" .22 LR 12/29/2007
MKIII678 / Steel Pistol 6.88" .22 LR 2/24/2008
MK8 / Blue Steel Pistol 8" .22 LR 12/31/2007
P8GC / Blue Steel, Polymer Pistol 8" .22 LR 12/31/2007
P45GCMKIII / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.5" .22 LR 4/25/2007 KSP-241X / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .22 LR 3/6/2008
KSP-3241X / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .32 H&R Magnum 3/6/2008
KSP-3231X / Stainless Steel Revolver 3.063" .32 H&R Magnum 3/6/2008
GP-141 / Blue Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
GPF-340 / Blue Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
GPF-341 / Blue Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KGP-141 / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KGP-141TG / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 6/3/2007
KGPF-340 / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KGPF-341 / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
GPF-331 / Blue Steel Revolver 3" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KGPF-330 / Stainless Steel Revolver 3" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KGPF-331 / Stainless Steel Revolver 3" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KSP-331X / Stainless Steel Revolver 3.06" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
GP160 / Blue Steel Revolver 6" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
GP-161 / Blue Steel Revolver 6" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KGP-160 / Stainless Steel Revolver 6" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KGP-161 / Stainless Steel Revolver 6" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KSP-321X / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KSP-321XL / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .357 Magnum 12/31/2007
KSP-321XTG / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .357 Magnum 6/3/2007
KSP-821X / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.25" .38 Spl 9/10/2007 KSP-831X / Stainless Steel Revolver 3.06" .38 Spl 3/12/2008
KGPF-840 / Stainless Steel Revolver 4" .38 Spl 12/31/2007
P944 / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.2" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
P944T / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.2" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
P944TH / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.2" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
KP944 / Stainless Steel, Alum Alloy Pistol 4.20" .40 S&W 5/15/2007
KP944D / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.20" .40 S&W 5/15/2007
P944 / Blued Steel, Alum Alloy Pistol 4.20" .40 S&W 5/15/2007
P944T / Blued Steel, Alum Alloy Pistol 4.20" .40 S&W 5/15/2007
P944TH / Blued Steel, Alum Alloy Pistol 4.20" .40 S&W 5/15/2007
KP944 / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.2" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
KP944TH / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.2" .40 S&W 2/5/2008
KRH-445 / Stainless Steel Revolver 5.5" .44 Magnum 5/21/2007
KRH-445 / Stainless Steel Revolver 5.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
KRH-44 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
KRH-44R / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
RH-445 / Blue Steel Revolver 5.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
KSRH-7 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
RH-44 / Blue Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
RH-44R / Blue Steel Revolver 7.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
KSRH-9 / Stainless Steel Revolver 9.5" .44 Magnum 12/31/2007
KSRH-2 / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.5" .44 Magnum 11/30/2007
KP97D / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 ACP 2/6/2008
P97D / Blue Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.25" .45 ACP 6/13/2007
KP345DPR / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 ACP 4/25/2007
KP90 / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 12/31/2007
KP90D / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 2/6/2008
KP90TH / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 2/5/2008
P90 / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 12/31/2007
P90T / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 12/31/2007
P90TH / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 12/31/2007
P90THGA / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 12/18/2007
P90THGADLX / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" .45 ACP 12/18/2007
KP345 / Steel and Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 Auto 9/15/2007
KP345PR / Stainless Steel and Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 Auto 8/10/2007
P345PR / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.2" .45 Auto 5/27/2007
KRH-45 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .45 Long Colt 12/31/2007
KRH-45R / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .45 Long Colt 12/31/2007
KRH-455 / Stainless Steel Revolver 5.5" .45 Long Colt 12/31/2007
KSRH-7454 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .454 Casull 12/31/2007
KSRH-9454 / Stainless Steel Revolver 9.5" .454 Casull 4/17/2007
KSRH-2454 / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.5" .454 Casull 8/11/2007
KSRH-2480 / Stainless Steel Revolver 2.5" .480 Ruger 3/28/2008
KSRH-9480 / Stainless Steel Revolver 9.5" .480 Ruger 4/17/2007
KSRH-7480 / Stainless Steel Revolver 7.5" .480 Ruger 4/17/2007
P89 / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" 9mm 12/31/2007 P89D / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" 9mm 2/6/2008
P89T / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" 9mm 12/31/2007
P89TH / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy, Stainless Steel Pistol 4.5" 9mm 12/31/2007
P94 / Blue Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.2" 9mm 12/31/2007
P95 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" 9mm 7/2/2007
P95PR / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" 9mm 5/27/2007 KP95D / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.9" 9mm 2/7/2008
KP95DPR / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.9" 9mm 5/27/2007
P95D / Blue Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.9" 9mm 2/6/2008
P95DPR / Blue Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.9" 9mm 5/27/2007
P95L / Blued Steel, Stnls Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.90" 9mm 6/25/2007
KP95 / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" 9mm 12/31/2007
KP95PR / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" 9mm 5/27/2007
KP94 / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.2" 9mm 12/31/2007
KP89 / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" 9mm 12/31/2007
KP89D / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" 9mm 2/6/2008
KP89TH / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy Pistol 4.5" 9mm 2/5/2008

[hoffmang]

Yes, it does impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way. Assault weapons may not be purchased by or transferred to individuals within the state. Legislative intent was to issue permits to those who wished to collect, own or sell them. After-the-fact regulatory implementation halted any normal commerce on items deemed 'assault weapons' and prevented issuance of permits unless a specific 'needs' could be demonstrated.

What this new law appears to do is go far beyond discriminating, but completely regulates interstate commerce.

Let me explain how the dormant commerce clause works.

Roberti-Roos doesn't impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way. In state FFLS can't sell AWs to CA residents at the same rate that out of state FFLs which is 0.

However, in state FFLs can ship easily to other in state FFLs for sale to end consumers because they are all on the "approved" list. If out of state FFLs are denied the equivalent ability beyond a very simple and timely import permit, then California is discriminating against out of state commerce which is a violation of the dormant commerce clause.

See the difference and why its not legit Federally?

However, if DOJ in a non discriminant way is only confirming that the FFL that the out of state FFL is sending to is a valid CA FFL, this law would be legal and should only be a minor (though annoying) inconvenience.

However, it may be pre-empted by Federal law or regulation under the BATFE.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

See the difference and why its not legit Federally?

Thank you. Yes. I understand how you describe it to be illegal federally, however my example wasn't really one that violated interstate commerce laws, but did limit it, in a fashion.


Out of state buyer 'Arnold' can purchase an item from any dealer he so chooses, except for a California dealer or private individual who has not been granted a permit. He may also choose to buy it locally from a dealer or private individual, or another individual out of state. However, a California private individual may not sell it to the other out of state private individual because he must have a licensed FFL AW Permit holder send the firearm out of state on his behalf. It does limit interstate commerce, but as you note, may not actually break any laws. However in state individuals or FFLs who do not have a permit are restricted to not participate in these transactions. The important thing you must remember is that these permits were supposed to be 'shall-issue' to those who were eligible, but after passing had their original intent twisted by regulation.

I haven't been trying to post a correlation, but just a similar circumstance on how commerce was restricted beyond what it should have been only because DOJ regulatory decisions made it happen.

[jemaddux]

However, if DOJ in a non discriminant way is only confirming that the FFL that the out of state FFL is sending to is a valid CA FFL, this law would be legal and should only be a minor (though annoying) inconvenience.



But this would be the key, of course they could say yes that FFL is fine to send to and here is your number. And then you look at the other hand, they could also say we will need to check on that and will get back to you in writing within the next 30 days. How many dealers are going to put up with that? Like I said, I am in day eight of waiting for an approval on a Mauser from 1943 and the so called law isn't even going yet.:mad:

[jemaddux]

Also one thing that seems to have not been really mentioned is that the new law says "BOTH IN-STATE AND OUT OF STATE FFLs TO OBTAIN APPROVAL". This would mean that again, if Cold War or DD Ranch wanted to send something they would have to not only call DOJ but also call me and let me know all the information and then I would also have to call and get a number for every transfer. Thats a lot of time on the phone for $40, sorry to say but my prices would have to go up to cover someone making phone calls. And another thing would be what about Gun Shows? Would that mean for every sale that an out of state dealer did and had to have transfered at the show couldn't be done until Monday when DOJ was open and then have to be shipped? So much for what is left of gun shows here in the peoples republic.

[Yankee Clipper]

AB 2521, at minimum, impedes interstate commerce. If it stops the shipping of federally legal firearms to CA then the NRA may already have a plan in place emasculate not only that law but to use it as a club on other state laws that are already abridging our 2nd amendment rights. Possibly that is why they let it slip through. Or maybe not.

[jemaddux]

AB 2521, at minimum, impedes interstate commerce. If it stops the shipping of federally legal firearms to CA then the NRA may already have a plan in place emasculate not only that law but to use it as a club on other state laws that are already abridging our 2nd amendment rights. Possibly that is why they let it slip through. Or maybe not.

Here we go again with this. Sorry to say but the NRA has said bye bye to California. The money that is given here to the NRA does nothing but go into other fights that can be won. California is a losing battle and this one is already set into law, nothing can be done to reverse this one right now. AM said she was going to ban firearms here in California and she seems to be doing what it takes with help to make this happen.:mad:

[Smokeybehr]

Looks like the vote was actually along party lines. My Assemblyman (Villines) voted against it, and all of the anti-gunners voted for it.

[Paratus et Vigilans]

One of the best things about Santa Clara County (I used to live there) is its proximity to San Francisco.

One of the worst things about Santa Clara County is . . . its proximity to San Francisco.

The orchards went out, the tract houses and high tech industrial parks went in, the character of the county changed, and now instead of resembling a Steinbeck novel you've got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and a downtown full of Metrosexuals living in fake Italian condos and lofts.

Gag me.

I liked it better when you had to dodge the hookers on South First to eat at Original Joe's at midnight and step over the drunks to get a steak at Henry's Hi Life.

Out with the dive bars, in with the fern bars.

Sad, but true.:(

[hoffmang]

I predict two things on this.

1. Most out of state FFLs will not know (or really care) that they need a number to send firearms into California because its unique and I'm incredulous that BATFE will care as long as the out of state FFL has a copy of the CA FFL's FFL on file.

2. To the extent DOJ has funding to do this, they'll have a simple web form that issues a permit if the query is for a registered CA FFL. Its probably going to be wide open for abuse from people like me who can write web bots...

-Gene

[xenophobe]

1. Most out of state FFLs will not know (or really care) that they need a number to send firearms into California because its unique and I'm incredulous that BATFE will care as long as the out of state FFL has a copy of the CA FFL's FFL on file.

If that's the case and the California FFL receives the firearm, they're guilty of a misdemeanor. And what's the process for the out of state dealer to contest a denial to ship legal firearms here? It's stated that it may be required for both the receiving and sending FFLs log into this site... So there will be a new fee, there will be a possible requirement of stating the contents of the particular shipment, and possibly a new DROS entry field 'approval number' which would link a particular package or firearm to each purchaser... this is registration. I agree I'm pushing the boundaries of what I read, but it's all plausible...

[jemaddux]

So here is what I think as a dealer that is already dealing with this BS.


I predict two things on this.

1. Most out of state FFLs will not know (or really care) that they need a number to send firearms into California because its unique and I'm incredulous that BATFE will care as long as the out of state FFL has a copy of the CA FFL's FFL on file.


Or they will require the number put on the DROS just like the HSC number. Without this number it won't allow you to sumit the DROS and during an inspection when they look at your log book all of the numbers will have to match.


2. To the extent DOJ has funding to do this, they'll have a simple web form that issues a permit if the query is for a registered CA FFL. Its probably going to be wide open for abuse from people like me who can write web bots...

-Gene


Or, they will keep the same phone lines going and if you don't get through then you had better start tomorrow again if you really want to sell that firearm. This giving DOJ and new out look of "We at the DOJ think that waiting longer is better, it helps you think clearly if you REALLY want that firearm or not."


I have a lot of respect for what you say Gene but as I have already said, I am already dealing with this on a 1943 bolt action firearm. I am ending day eight of waiting for an approval from DOJ and figure this is the weekend so add two more days before an answer will be given (that is as long as they were to answer monday).

[hoffmang]

I cry shenanigans.

This seems to actually be the new section in the law:

(f) (1) (A) Commencing July 1, 2008, a person who is licensed
pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of
the United States Code may not deliver, sell, or transfer a firearm
to a person in California who is licensed pursuant to Chapter 44
(commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code
unless, prior to delivery, the person intending to deliver, sell, or
transfer the firearm obtains a verification number via the Internet
for the intended delivery, sale, or transfer, from the department. If
Internet service is unavailable to either the department or the
licensee due to a technical or other malfunction, or a federal
firearms licensee who is located outside of California does not
possess a computer or have Internet access, alternate means of
communication, including facsimile or telephone, shall be made
available for a licensee to obtain a verification number in order to
comply with this section. This subdivision shall not apply to the
delivery, sale, or transfer of a short-barreled rifle, or
short-barreled shotgun, as defined in Section 12020, or to a
machinegun as defined in Section 12200, or to an assault weapon as
defined in Sections 12276, 12276.1, and 12276.5.
(B) For every identification number request received pursuant to
this section, the department shall determine whether the intended
recipient is on the centralized list of firearms dealers pursuant to
this section, or the centralized list of exempted federal firearms
licensees pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12083, or the
centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to subdivision
(f) of Section 12086.
(C) If the department finds that the intended recipient is on one
of these lists, the department shall issue to the inquiring party, a
unique identification number for the intended delivery, sale, or
transfer. In addition to the unique verification number, the
department may provide to the inquiring party information necessary
for determining the eligibility of the intended recipient to receive
the firearm. The person intending to deliver, sell, or transfer the
firearm shall provide the unique verification number to the recipient
along with the firearm upon delivery, in a manner to be determined
by the department.
(D) If the department finds that the intended recipient is not on
one of these lists, the department shall notify the inquiring party
that the intended recipient is ineligible to receive the firearm.
(E) The department shall prescribe the manner in which the
verification numbers may be requested via the Internet, or by
alternate means of communication, such as by facsimile or telephone,
including all required enrollment information and procedures.


There is no place that DOJ is allowed to charge a fee. This is a shall issue number and it requires the internet. DOJ could stall for a while, but they have to make this generally available over the internet in a reasonable amount of time.

That's not to say that we may not have some transition pain.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

Actually the DOJ will be able to charge a yearly $115 fee for this new Centralized List. I saw it but didn't make notice of where it was.

An act to amend Sections 12071, 12072, 12078, and 12082 of, and to
repeal and add Section 12083 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

Are you sure you quoted all of the changes?

[leelaw]

Just a reminder that we don't call out other members here nor do we tolerate name-calling.

Posts have been edited. Quotes of offending posts have been removed.

<Officer> Move along, nothing to see here! </Officer>

[hoffmang]

Xeno,

As you were posting I was closely reading further. Here is the other section:

12083. (a) Commencing January 1, 2008, the Department of Justice
shall keep a centralized list of persons who identify themselves as
being licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921)
of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer, pawnbroker,
importer or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed premises are
within this state and who declare to the department an exemption from
the firearms dealer licensing requirements of Section 12070. The
list shall be known as the centralized list of exempted federal
firearms licensees. To qualify for placement on the centralized list,
an applicant shall do all of the following:
(1) Possess a valid federal firearms license pursuant to Chapter
44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States
Code as a dealer, pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms.

(2) Maintain eligibility under California law to possess firearms
by possessing a current, valid certificate of eligibility pursuant to
Section 12071.
(3) Maintain with the department a signed declaration enumerating
the applicant's statutory exemptions from licensing requirements of
Section 12070. Any person furnishing a fictitious name, knowingly
furnishing any incorrect information, or knowingly omitting any
information for the declaration shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Commencing January 1, 2008, the department shall assess an
annual fee of one hundred fifteen dollars ($115) to cover its costs
of maintaining the centralized list of exempted federal firearms
licensees prescribed by subdivision (a), conducting inspections in
accordance with this section, and for the cost of maintaining the
firearm shipment verification number system described in subdivision
(f) of Section 12072. The department may increase the fee at a rate
not to exceed the increase in the California Consumer Price Index as
compiled and reported by the Department of Industrial Relations. The
fees collected shall be deposited in the Dealers' Record of Sale
Special Account.
(c) (1) Any person licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing
with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer,
pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed
premises are within this state shall not import or receive firearms
from any source unless listed on the centralized list of firearms
dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of
exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or
the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 12086.
(2) A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.
(d) (1) All persons on the centralized list of exempted federal
firearms licensees prescribed by subdivision (a) shall record and
keep on file for three years, the verification number that shall
accompany firearms received from other federal firearms licensees
pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 12072.
(2) A violation of this subdivision is cause for immediate removal
from the centralized list.
(e) Information compiled from the list described in subdivision
(a) shall be made available for the following purposes:
(1) Requests from local, state, and federal law enforcing agencies
and the duly constituted city, county, and city and county licensing
authorities.
(2) When the information is requested by a person licensed
pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of
the United States Code for determining the validity of the license
for firearm shipments.
(f) The department may conduct onsite inspections at the business
premises of a person on the centralized list described in subdivision
(a) to determine compliance with firearms laws pursuant to Article 4
(commencing with Section 12070) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4 of
the Penal Code. The department shall work in consultation with the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to ensure that
licensees are not subject to duplicative inspections. During the
inspection the following firearm records shall be made available for
review:
(1) Federal records referred to in subdivision (a) of Section
478.125 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the bound
book containing the same information referred to in Section 478.124a
and subdivision (e) of Section 478.125 of Title 27 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
(2) Verification numbers issued pursuant to subdivision (f) of
Section 12072.
(3) Any other records requested by the department to determine
compliance with this article.
(g) The department may remove from the centralized list described
in subdivision (a), any person who violates this article.
(h) The department may adopt regulations as necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section, subdivision (f) of Section 12072,
and Section 12071. The department shall work in consultation with the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to ensure that
state regulations are not duplicative of federal regulations.


People are misreading this:

(c) (1) Any person licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing
with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer,
pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed
premises are within this state shall not import or receive firearms
from any source unless listed on the centralized list of firearms
dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of
exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or
the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 12086.


The "unless listed on the centralized list of firearms dealers" is referring back to folks, "whose licensed premises are within this state."

It could be a PIA, but its not a cost per gun beyond getting out of state FFLs to obtain the number.

The big loophole I see is that I don't see how this stops a CA FFL from receiving a package without a number, logging on to the website to verify his own FFL, and getting a number for the package...

Somebody find me some code to prove me wrong.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

Good job Gene. Still I wonder what Jeremy was going through...

[Anthonysmanifesto]

I havent spent my Friday evening doing a close bill analysis, but I can see, and have heard people are concerned, so I skimmed the bill and the "official" or democrat analysis, looked at the votes and at this moment am not unduly concerned.

I will try to post a real analysis next week with a variety of sources, but, at first blush, this bill is bureaucratically annoying, an possible inconvenience to small business, but not a big threat.

This bill was designed to stop forged FFL's from ordering guns.

again, "at first blush", it would be difficult to use an existing system that has been slightly modified to do something nefarious.

If im wrong, ill admit it, but im not worried at the time of this writing.

and by the way... Xenophobe, for someone who hates "double checking" the SB 15 list, you sure got a lot of liability coverage out of AB 2111 without having to change your behavior!

[xenophobe]

This bill was designed to stop forged FFL's from ordering guns. ATF already has ezcheck.


If im wrong, ill admit it, but im not worried at the time of this writing.

and by the way... Xenophobe, for someone who hates "double checking" the SB 15 list, you sure got a lot of liability coverage out of AB 2111 without having to change your behavior!

What liability coverage in AB2111? There is none. Not directly or even indirectly addressed as liability coverage. AB2111 was a give to the liberals by the NRA. It had to be. It passed unopposed. BTW, Bush signed the Consumer Liability Act which provides actual stated protection to dealers and manufacturers, and offers real protection. Again, AB2111 does not even imply protection to dealers, all it did was force the DOJ to make a dealer re-check the list before delivering a handgun. That's all. One tiny little extra statutory hoop to jump though. Nothing else.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

ATF already has ezcheck.



What liability coverage in AB2111? There is none. Not directly or even indirectly addressed as liability coverage. AB2111 was a give to the liberals by the NRA. It had to be. It passed unopposed. BTW, Bush signed the Consumer Liability Act which provides actual stated protection to dealers and manufacturers, and offers real protection. Again, AB2111 does not even imply protection to dealers, all it did was force the DOJ to make a dealer re-check the list before delivering a handgun. That's all. One tiny little extra statutory hoop to jump though. Nothing else.

please cite and quote which section requires you to actually click refesh again.

then look at the fact that whether or not you do, the weapon is undeniably deliverable.

Xeno... Ive missed you and the eternal AB 2111 "debate" over a one line bill.

[xenophobe]

Aren't you tired of blindly following the NRA talking points on AB2111.

Please cite anywhere in the bill where it actually offers ANY protection whatsoever. Directly or implied. tick tick tick

EDIT: I just read your response. You keep on going in circles Anthony. Reading your reply, you can't cite one instance where the bill actually says it offere any liability protection from the dealer or consumer. :rolleyes:

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Aren't you tired of blindly following the NRA talking points on AB2111.

Please cite anywhere in the bill where it actually offers ANY protection whatsoever. Directly or implied. tick tick tick

ugh!

[artherd]

Come on DOJ, get discretionary with these, give us some standing, I dares ya!

[donger]

Where is Mike Haas? I would like to know how something of this magnitude got buy the NRA. How did this slip under the radar of not just the NRA but everyone here?

Something like this makes me (almost) hope that all firearms manufacturers abandon this state and refuse to sell to law enforcement agencies.

[jemaddux]

Where is Mike Haas? I would like to know how something of this magnitude got buy the NRA. How did this slip under the radar of not just the NRA but everyone here?

Something like this makes me (almost) hope that all firearms manufacturers abandon this state and refuse to sell to law enforcement agencies.

You most likely will get your wish on that one........:(

[SemiAutoSam]

I understand your feeling on this and I agree but I have a feeling that the bottom line is the profit and the shareholders of the companies that sell or use to sell to FFL's here and unfortunately not all of the companies have the stones that Ronny Barrett has. http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/forums/mad.gif

Where is Mike Haas? I would like to know how something of this magnitude got buy the NRA. How did this slip under the radar of not just the NRA but everyone here?

Something like this makes me (almost) hope that all firearms manufacturers abandon this state and refuse to sell to law enforcement agencies.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I finally found some time to look at this. I don't know about you guys, but I am having a hard time figuring it out. I am going to try to figure it out online with you and you can tell me if I am reading this right. I think the best way is to look at the Penal Code sections.

12072 f(1)a says effective 7/1/08, I as an FFL can no longer deliver, sell, or transfer a firearm to a licensee without getting a verification number authorizing the transaction. I think I am also reading where an out of state dealer can no longer deliver, sell, or transfer a firearm to me without receiving the verification number. It appears that if I am on the Centralized List of Firearms Dealers, then I am already pre-authorized and so it shouldn't take that much time.

However, the number has to be a unique number and it does not say for "firearms", it says "firearm". So if I order 10 guns from Stoeger, does Stoeger have to make 10 applications online and receive 10 "unique verification numbers" as stated in (f) (1) (C)? This could be a problem.

Further, it makes no mention of what information will be required from the dealer in order to process this request. It very well could require make, model, & serial number of the firearm. The interesting part is it is kind of like the high cap mag ban, it makes no mention that I cannot buy firearms without the number. I just can't sell, deliver, or transfer them. It does say the seller is supposed to give me the number when they deliver the firearm, but will I get in trouble for taking a firearm without the number?

I could easily see a lot of out of state dealers saying, "TO HELL WITH CALIFORANIA" over this. I could see it being fairly easy to get the number online too. However, as was pointed out, what is to prevent a bot from screwing with the system? Will it require secure online log in? Will it be an open application? This thing sounds like a mess.

Did you notice in 12082 you can no longer loan a firearm to anyone unless it goes through a licensed dealer? You might want to read it.

Then in section 12083 we get the nail in the mother freaking coffin! Holy crap! (c) (1) Any person licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer, pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed premises are within this state shall not import or receive firearms from any source unless listed on the centralized list of firearms dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 12086.
(2) A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.And there it is. I will not longer be able to import or receive firearms from any source unless that source is on the centralized list. If I do, I am guilty of a misdemeanor.

I keep having to retype this as I keep reading and changing my mind on what this all means. If I read this correctly, I will no longer be able to "import or receive" a firearm from any source unless unless "listed on the centralized list of firearms dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 12086."

THAT MEANS I CAN NO LONGER BUY USED GUNS! If you want to sell me your gun, I cannot accept it unless you are on the "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees". God, I hope there is an exemption in there somewhere, but I don't see it off hand. It looks pretty clear that I cannot "import or receive" a firearm unless you are on the list. No more used guns!

Further, I cannot receive firearms from licensed dealers out of state either unless they are on the "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees". Here are the requirements for that. (1) Possess a valid federal firearms license pursuant to Chapter 44
(commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a
dealer, pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms.
(2) Maintain eligibility under California law to possess firearms by
possessing a current, valid certificate of eligibility pursuant to Section
12071.
(3) Maintain with the department a signed declaration enumerating the
applicant’s statutory exemptions from licensing requirements of Section
12070. Any person furnishing a fictitious name, knowingly furnishing any
incorrect information, or knowingly omitting any information for the
declaration shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Centralized list $115
COE inital cost minimum $56 fingerprint fees (you still have to pay the person making the live scan) plus $22 for the COE and pay $22 to maintain it a year.

Will companies who like to mark up a firearm $30 and send it to CA as a transfer go through this hassle and cost? I severly doubt it.

You guys can pretty much kiss out of state transfers good bye.

I have a feeling the people who helped pass this were the gun manufacturers. You can pretty much kiss all non-PPT and used gun sales good bye. If you don't buy it brand new from a dealer who gets their guns from major wholesalers, I don't think you are going to find anyone who wants to do business with this state.

My new question is "WHAT IN THE FREAK IS GOING ON HERE???" I seem to be a pretty competent individual with good reading comprehension skills so I would love to be wrong on all of this, but it looks pretty clear.

The consumer of California just got screwed and I very well might retire early if I can find anyone to ship me guns. :(

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Until I get more info and opinion, im finding the Senate Floor Analysis of 08/26/06 to be somewhat helpful... at least pointing me in the right direction.

[HowardW56]

I finally found some time to look at this. I don't know about you guys, but I am having a hard time figuring it out. I am going to try to figure it out online with you and you can tell me if I am reading this right. I think the best way is to look at the Penal Code sections.

12072 f(1)a says effective 7/1/08, I as an FFL can no longer deliver, sell, or transfer a firearm to a licensee without getting a verification number authorizing the transaction. I think I am also reading where an out of state dealer can no longer deliver, sell, or transfer a firearm to me without receiving the verification number. It appears that if I am on the Centralized List of Firearms Dealers, then I am already pre-authorized and so it shouldn't take that much time.

However, the number has to be a unique number and it does not say for "firearms", it says "firearm". So if I order 10 guns from Stoeger, does Stoeger have to make 10 applications online and receive 10 "unique verification numbers" as stated in (f) (1) (C)? This could be a problem.

Further, it makes no mention of what information will be required from the dealer in order to process this request. It very well could require make, model, & serial number of the firearm. The interesting part is it is kind of like the high cap mag ban, it makes no mention that I cannot buy firearms without the number. I just can't sell, deliver, or transfer them. It does say the seller is supposed to give me the number when they deliver the firearm, but will I get in trouble for taking a firearm without the number?

I could easily see a lot of out of state dealers saying, "TO HELL WITH CALIFORANIA" over this. I could see it being fairly easy to get the number online too. However, as was pointed out, what is to prevent a bot from screwing with the system? Will it require secure online log in? Will it be an open application? This thing sounds like a mess.

Did you notice in 12082 you can no longer loan a firearm to anyone unless it goes through a licensed dealer? You might want to read it.

Then in section 12083 we get the nail in the mother freaking coffin! Holy crap! And there it is. I will not longer be able to import or receive firearms from any source unless that source is on the centralized list. If I do, I am guilty of a misdemeanor.

I keep having to retype this as I keep reading and changing my mind on what this all means. If I read this correctly, I will no longer be able to "import or receive" a firearm from any source unless unless "listed on the centralized list of firearms dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 12086."

THAT MEANS I CAN NO LONGER BUY USED GUNS! If you want to sell me your gun, I cannot accept it unless you are on the "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees". God, I hope there is an exemption in there somewhere, but I don't see it off hand. It looks pretty clear that I cannot "import or receive" a firearm unless you are on the list. No more used guns!

Further, I cannot receive firearms from licensed dealers out of state either unless they are on the "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees". Here are the requirements for that.

Centralized list $115
COE inital cost minimum $56 fingerprint fees (you still have to pay the person making the live scan) plus $22 for the COE and pay $22 to maintain it a year.

Will companies who like to mark up a firearm $30 and send it to CA as a transfer go through this hassle and cost? I severly doubt it.

You guys can pretty much kiss out of state transfers good bye.

I have a feeling the people who helped pass this were the gun manufacturers. You can pretty much kiss all non-PPT and used gun sales good bye. If you don't buy it brand new from a dealer who gets their guns from major wholesalers, I don't think you are going to find anyone who wants to do business with this state.

My new question is "WHAT IN THE FREAK IS GOING ON HERE???" I seem to be a pretty competent individual with good reading comprehension skills so I would love to be wrong on all of this, but it looks pretty clear.

The consumer of California just got screwed and I very well might retire early if I can find anyone to ship me guns. :(

I have come to some of the same conclusions that you have.... This bill seems to create an unworkable situation…

The bureaucracy that DOJ will need to make this work, without unduly burdening interstate commerce, will be incredible. Maybe they will outsource this to a phone bank in India…. (Just kidding)

It appears that they have, intentionally or not, created a system of increased delays in delivery of firearms and the need for local dealers to carry larger inventories and maintain a better system of inventory replacement. Dealers would no longer be able to place an order for firearms and receive them in 24 or 48 hours.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Here is the way to think about this. The DOJ doesn't have to drag their feet, they don't have to harass anyone over this. This one is so simple it does not require any evilness on the DOJ's part.

The DOJ is going to be good civil servants and they will develop a good system for dishing out the numbers and it might be fairly reliable.

The problem is getting to that point.

First, I cannot receive a firearm from anyone not on the list. Until someone shows us an exemption, that is fact.

So in order to get on the list a dealer is going to have to submit $115, get a COE for about $100, and then submit every gun for a number after that.

You see, the DOJ will be good servants, approve anyone and everyone that meets the requirements, and they will do their job. They don't have to drag their feet or mess with people because the requirements, time and money necessary to even get on the list is such a pain that most dealers out of state are not going to bother!

There is no great conspiracy theory and there is no need to harass gun dealers who are applying. The worst part about this is just the simple fact that it will be such a pain to comply, that it will deter most people without the DOJ having to be malicious.

[hoffmang]

Ten,

Even though its poorly drafted, I don't think DOJ has the ability to force out of state vendors to be on the in state list. They can only create a database of FFLs who are licensed in this state.

There will have to be new regulations on this one. Lets see where DOJ goes with that.

-Gene

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Ten,

Even though its poorly drafted, I don't think DOJ has the ability to force out of state vendors to be on the in state list. They can only create a database of FFLs who are licensed in this state.

There will have to be new regulations on this one. Lets see where DOJ goes with that.

-Gene

I am hungry for more input , but this doesnt seem as scary on a second read. lets take a deep breath and get more data next week.

[hoffmang]

Ten,

Also, you are misreading that section. You can only receive firearms from out of state if you ARE ON THE LIST - not the other guy has to be on too.


(c) (1) Any person licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing
with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer,
pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed
premises are within this state shall not import or receive firearms
from any source unless [the person licensed whose licensed premises
are within this state is] listed on the centralized list of firearms
dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of
exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or
the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 12086.


I've added some clarifying language. This is what this section means because otherwise CA would be trying to regulate out of state dealers and that can't happen. If it does happen, Hector can sue CA in Texas and this will be the construction a Federal Court will leave them with.

-Gene

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ok, that makes sense, but not really. I guess until a lawyer looks at it and the DOJ says how they are going to run this, we can best case scenario hope Gene is right and that I have to be on the list to import or receive. That most certainly makes sense that they can't require out of state dealers to get California licenses to ship firearms in. However, I can only go by what I read and that language is certainly confusing.

It is the weekend so lets wait and see what Chuck Michel has to say about this when he gets back in the office next week.

For sure it is going to be one more pain in the rear thing to do to get a unique authorization number for every firearm transaction and then store it for three years. This is still going to increase the hassle of shipping firearms into this state.

Another thing is if the State of California can require a dealer out of state to get a unique authorization number to ship firearms in, why can't they require them to be on the centralized list and pay a fee too?

[hoffmang]

Ten,

The other major item that supports my reading is that there is otherwise no ability for an out of state FFL to get on the central list because they don't have a premises within the state.

-Gene

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ten,

The other major item that supports my reading is that there is otherwise no ability for an out of state FFL to get on the central list because they don't have a premises within the state.

-Gene

They don't have to have a premis in the state. I as a dealer with a premis in the state cannot accept firearms from people off the list or I get a misdemeanor. They don't get charged, I do.

edit: Nevermind, I see where it says dealers in this state will be on the centralized list.

I think you are correct in your evaluation as that makes sense why this was a non-issue. However, the poor wording and the fact that we are going to have to get a lawyers take on this kind of pisses me off. The law should be easy to read by anyone.

So to clarify, this should not mandate that I can only buy firearms from people on the list. I can only import or receive firearms if I am on the list. This is pretty redundent as this was already the case.

So the real effect of this bill is that now any dealer who wants to deliver, sell, or transfer a firearm to a CA dealer will have to get an authorization number first.

So the question is, what do I do as a dealer if a dealer out of state sends me a firearm without getting a number first? Do I have to send it back? This is still going to be a major pain for out of state and in-state dealers nonetheless. I would like to hear the strategy on why we let this one come through as the only people this is going to hurt are CA dealers if they don't make sure their numbers match up and the consumer as more people decide dealing with CA is not worth it.

At least it will reduce the number of "transfers" and thereby decrease my competition and increase my profit margin! :eek: Being a CA dealer gets more and more profitable if you can just handle the BS.

[bg]

Wonder how this would affect OLL's since Ca's DOJ wants to stop them from
coming here ?

THAT MEANS I CAN NO LONGER BUY USED GUNS! If you want to sell me your gun, I cannot accept it unless you are on the "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees". God, I hope there is an exemption in there somewhere, but I don't see it off hand. It looks pretty clear that I cannot "import or receive" a firearm unless you are on the list. No more used guns!This is nasty. I'm going to want to sell what tiny amount of firearms I have and
it appears with this new law, I'm going to be screwed over as well as dealers.

[xenophobe]

Gene, Wes, from the wording, this creates a new Centralized list (centralized list of exempt federal firearms licensees (CLEFFL)), not to be confused with the current Centralized List of Firearms Dealers. So to do business in California, or to someone in California from out of state, you need to be on one or the other.

[hoffmang]

Xeno,

We may be in agreement, but your language is not precise enough. Let me be very precise.

This law sets up a centralized list of California domiciled FFLs and out of state FFLs can not ship to a California FFL unless that FFL is on the central list. It DOES NOT create a list of non California FFLs and the only impact it has on non California FFLs is that they need to go to a website to confirm the validity of the California FFL and get a receipt number for that confirmation to ship to a California FFL.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

You are being very precise, but at this point, without the regulatory language being known, nothing can be known to any exacting detail.

[HowardW56]

Xeno,

We may be in agreement, but your language is not precise enough. Let me be very precise.

This law sets up a centralized list of California domiciled FFLs and out of state FFLs can not ship to a California FFL unless that FFL is on the central list. It DOES NOT create a list of non California FFLs and the only impact it has on non California FFLs is that they need to go to a website to confirm the validity of the California FFL and get a receipt number for that confirmation to ship to a California FFL.

-Gene
If what you are saying is accurate, that cuts C&R licensees out of receiving any guns directly....

[Telpierion]

If what you are saying is accurate, that cuts C&R licensees out of receiving any guns directly....

That is what I thought at first but now I think C&R holders may be exempt from this.

(c) (1) Any person licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing
with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer,
pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed
premises are within this state shall not import or receive firearms
from any source unless [the person licensed whose licensed premises
are within this state is] listed on the centralized list of firearms
dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of
exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or
the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 12086.

Since collectors are not listed I would think that means they are not covered by this.

[hoffmang]

It does not apply to us C&R holders as we're collectors and the law only applies to the list above.

Pretty funny if you ask me.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

(c) (1) Any person licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing
with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer,
pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed
premises are within this state shall not import or receive firearms
from any source unless [the person licensed whose licensed premises
are within this state is] listed on the centralized list of firearms
dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of
exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or
the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 12086.

So you're saying that this portion only applies to exempted FFLs in California, and listed California manufacturers?

[tenpercentfirearms]

So you're saying that this portion only applies to exempted FFLs in California, and listed California manufacturers?

Yes, we believe so.

The language on this thing is horrible. Their interchanging of "centralized list" with "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees" makes this one a tough read. I am pretty sure there will be no more "centralized list" and it will now be known as the "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees". However, the freaking bill uses the old "centralized list" numerous times which gives one the feeling there are two lists. And hell, there might be!

Until the DOJ puts out what they are going to do with this, a lot of this is up in the air. Either way, I still want to know what we gained by having every single firearm that comes into this state or transfers around this state get a unique authorization number. My guess is less competition from outside gun sales as some people will say "screw California". I would guess the retail gun industry helped put this one through.

[xenophobe]

Their interchanging of "centralized list" with "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees" makes this one a tough read. I am pretty sure there will be no more "centralized list" and it will now be known as the "centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees". However, the freaking bill uses the old "centralized list" numerous times which gives one the feeling there are two lists. And hell, there might be!

There are already two lists... WAIT. This creates a third list. ugh

(c) (1) Any person licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing
with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer,
pawnbroker, importer, or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed
premises are within this state shall not import or receive firearms
from any source unless [the person licensed whose licensed premises
are within this state is] listed on the centralized list of firearms
dealers pursuant to Section 12071, or the centralized list of
exempted federal firearms licensees pursuant to subdivision (a), or
the centralized list of firearms manufacturers pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 12086.


One new list, one being a new separate list of Exempted FFLs (CLEFFL), and another list including those and the original non-exempted FFLs (CFD)...

So it appears if you are on the CFD list, you do not need to be on the CLEFFL, but if you are not on the CFD list, you must be on the CLEFFL. Each has a fee of $115, but the new CLEFFL fee may increase, but the original non-exempted CFD list may not be charged more than $115.


(the CFD includes) ...all persons who have submitted
information pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12083

It also seems that you are included on the CFD list if you have submitted to be on the CLEFFL list? I must be reading something wrong here...

Confusing as hell.

*shrug*


Three separate and distinct sets of law 12083 (a-b), 12071 (e-f), 12086 (b)(3) creating three separate lists:


12083. (a) Commencing January 1, 2008, the Department of Justice
shall keep a centralized list of persons who identify themselves as being
licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title
18 of the United States Code as a dealer, pawnbroker, importer or
manufacturer of firearms whose licensed premises are within this state and
who declare to the department an exemption from the firearms dealer
licensing requirements of Section 12070. The list shall be known as the
centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees. To qualify for
placement on the centralized list, an applicant shall do all of the following:
<snip>

(b) Commencing January 1, 2008, the department shall assess an
annual fee of one hundred fifteen dollars ($115) to cover its costs
of maintaining the centralized list of exempted federal firearms
licensees prescribed by subdivision (a), conducting inspections in
accordance with this section, and for the cost of maintaining the
firearm shipment verification number system described in subdivision
(f) of Section 12072. The department may increase the fee at a rate
not to exceed the increase in the California Consumer Price Index as
compiled and reported by the Department of Industrial Relations. The
fees collected shall be deposited in the Dealers' Record of Sale
Special Account.


(e) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
Department of Justice shall keep a centralized list of all persons
licensed pursuant to subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive, of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), and all persons who have submitted
information pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12083. The
department may remove from this list any person who knowingly or with
gross negligence violates this article. Upon removal of a dealer
from this list, notification shall be provided to local law
enforcement and licensing authorities in the jurisdiction where the
dealer's business is located.

(f) The Department of Justice may inspect dealers to ensure
compliance with this article. The department may assess an annual
fee, not to exceed one hundred fifteen dollars ($115), to cover the
reasonable cost of maintaining the list described in subdivision (e),
including the cost of inspections. Dealers whose place of business
is in a jurisdiction that has adopted an inspection program to ensure
compliance with firearms law shall be exempt from that portion of
the department's fee that relates to the cost of inspections. The
applicant is responsible for providing evidence to the department
that the jurisdiction in which the business is located has the
inspection program.


(3) The department shall adopt regulations to administer this
section and Section 12085 and shall recover the full costs of
administering the program by collecting fees from license applicants.
Recoverable costs shall include, but not be limited to, the costs
of inspections and maintaining a centralized list of licensed firearm
manufacturers. The fee for licensed manufacturers who produce fewer
than 500 firearms in a calendar year within this state shall not
exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per year or the actual costs
of inspections and maintaining a centralized list of firearm
manufacturers and any other duties of the department required
pursuant to this section and Section 12085, whichever is less.

This is really giving me a headache...

[xenophobe]

**bump for more opinions... please chime in**

[bwiese]

Either way, I still want to know what we gained by having every single firearm that comes into this state or transfers around this state get a unique authorization number. My guess is less competition from outside gun sales as some people will say "screw California". I would guess the retail gun industry helped put this one through.

We, of course, gained nothing. This may have been a CRPA bill that got in under the radar and that NRA somehow couldn't touch. Smells like Upholt or Lynch.

Whenever it turns into a "protected firearms retailer" (chains, big distributors selling into CA, etc. - as opposed to mom/pop gunshops) vs. the RKBA issue, you can bet the CRPA is running screaming from RKBA. That's what a paid lobbying organization does - unlike the NRA, CRPA does not have the 2nd Amendment as a client.

[Zebra]

We, of course, gained nothing. This may have been a CRPA bill that got in under the radar and that NRA somehow couldn't touch. Smells like Upholt or Lynch.

Whenever it turns into a "protected firearms retailer" (chains, big distributors selling into CA, etc. - as opposed to mom/pop gunshops) vs. the RKBA issue, you can bet the CRPA is running screaming from RKBA. That's what a paid lobbying organization does - unlike the NRA, CRPA does not have the 2nd Amendment as a client.

uhmmm, what?

[bwiese]

uhmmm, what?

The usual fight to keep CRPA from accidentally or intentionally mucking up CA gunrights.

CRPA's Upholt & crew think they're political geniuses when they negiotiate away text on proposed bills that was actually intentionally put there by the opposition specifically for the purpose of being negotiated away to achieve their desired end result.

CRPA also helps big distributor/retailers (with NSSF-related stuff) and sometimes those concerns work against the 2nd in CA. Many of these large chains like the 'safe gun' list, which the CRPA helped bring about - it helps make life harder for smaller competition, and guarantees inventory turn.

CRPA, until there arsed was called on the carpet, actively supported Torrico's mail order ammo ban bill last year.

CRPA is a private lobbying organization that happens to deal with gun-related legislative affairs. Sometimes it may be regarded as somewhat progun. Oftentimes it ends up otherwise.

[jmlivingston]

The CRPA (California Rifle and Pistol Association) has earned an unsavory reputation of protecting the interests of gun retailers and wholesalers before protecting the citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These two interests aren't always in line with each other, and sometimes the CRPA appears to favor decreased competition for it's retail members over the rights of us small guys to buy/use/bear arms.

John

[bwiese]

The CRPA (California Rifle and Pistol Association) has earned an unsavory reputation of protecting the interests of gun retailers and wholesalers before protecting the citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These two interests aren't always in line with each other, and sometimes the CRPA appears to favor decreased competition for it's retail members over the rights of us small guys to buy/use/bear arms.

Yup, and that's when they're acting competently.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Im holding out out for more info' on the law...

but Im withholding opinion on this bill and whatnot until I get good expert opinion.

whats cool is , watching the very bright Calgunners take a bill apart, argue about it, come to new conclusions and move on.

its the socratic method of gun laws.

for example, Xenopobe and I will never agree on AB 2111, but what would I do without him?

[xenophobe]

for example, Xenopobe and I will never agree on AB 2111, but what would I do without him?

Well, we both love guns. And we don't always have to agree to both be committed to the same cause.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Well, we both love guns. And we don't always have to agree to both be committed to the same cause.

word up!

[mikehaas]

I've just received the following from NRA:

----
As promised, I looked into the AB2521 issue from the 2006 California Legislative Session. I am told that AB2521 was a bill that was sponsored by the CA-DOJ and it was not opposed by the California Association Firearms Retailers (CAFR).

Also, I have conferred with NRA's legal team and other NRA Staff and received the following:

The following is a quick summary of the effect of the changes to Penal Code section 12072(f) by Assembly Bill 2521:

Under Penal Code section 12072(f) federal firearms licensees are required to obtain a unique verification number for the recipient (if, and only if, the recipient is also a federal firearms licensee) from the California Department of Justice via the internet. This requirement is akin to the EZ Check system implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

This section also requires the same seller to include a copy of the unique verification number along with the firearm to the recipient.

This requirement does not apply to private party sales processed through a California dealer where the out of state seller is an individual and not a federal firearms licensee.

This requirement is not in effect until July 1, 2008, and is subject to DOJ processing regulations.

Hopefully, this will calm-down anyone on the Internet, or other places, who thinks that the NRA didn't do it's (our) job. I look forward to reading the retractions and/or clarifications from those who quickly jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding AB2521.

If there is anything else I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Paul
----

Mike

[SemiAutoSam]

I see this law as more regulation and I am against any more regulation as I feel we have enough in this state. And it was interesting that this Bill/Law wasn't even mentioned by the NRA and I'm assuming that they knew about it and since we as a collective did not see this bill before it became law (My mistake I will be on top the the new bills a lot more because of this one)

I feel the NRA could have at least asked our opinion on this instead of just ignoring it and our feelings on it.

Reminds me of our politicians they also don't ask what we want.

YES I feel NRA Dropped the ball on this one if anything its redundancy like you mentioned the BATF already has a check system in place.

I would love to hear what the NRA's reasons are for letting this bill run its course without any opposition ?

We could have use that one click system to send a message about this bill but I suppose that system is only used when they want our help defeating a bill.

SO they are in control and not the people ehhh ? They control the collective and tell us what they want us to gang on up on or against.

I've just received the following from NRA:

----
As promised, I looked into the AB2521 issue from the 2006 California Legislative Session. I am told that AB2521 was a bill that was sponsored by the CA-DOJ and it was not opposed by the California Association Firearms Retailers (CAFR).

Also, I have conferred with NRA's legal team and other NRA Staff and received the following:

The following is a quick summary of the effect of the changes to Penal Code section 12072(f) by Assembly Bill 2521:

Under Penal Code section 12072(f) federal firearms licensees are required to obtain a unique verification number for the recipient (if, and only if, the recipient is also a federal firearms licensee) from the California Department of Justice via the internet. This requirement is akin to the EZ Check system implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

This section also requires the same seller to include a copy of the unique verification number along with the firearm to the recipient.

This requirement does not apply to private party sales processed through a California dealer where the out of state seller is an individual and not a federal firearms licensee.

This requirement is not in effect until July 1, 2008, and is subject to DOJ processing regulations.

Hopefully, this will calm-down anyone on the Internet, or other places, who thinks that the NRA didn't do it's (our) job. I look forward to reading the retractions and/or clarifications from those who quickly jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding AB2521.

If there is anything else I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Paul
----

Mike

[bwiese]

I don't think the NRA ignored it. I think it was a last minute thing driven by the retailers (Calif Assn of Firearms Retailers) and the NRA's lawyers looked at it and said "what the hell" and figured fighting CRPA (Torrico's) ammo bill and microstamping was more important.

That CAF organization is tied with CRPA, not NRA. Its interests are selling guns.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Yeah I don't see a commercial interest in it for the NRA as opposed to the CRPA.
However comma, now that its brought up I don't recall seeing anything about the NRA indicating knowledge of the bill as in 'oppose', 'don't oppose' or 'don't give a hoot one way or the other'. I have not looked or searched for such either and don't intend to as I think its immaterial at this point.

Nor do I recall anything much as far as discussions regarding it here on Calguns.

My only concern is that if it slipped through unnoticed it could happen again.

We know for sure the CAFR and NSSF was pushing this one?

Vick

[tenpercentfirearms]

It would be nice if the NRA fought every little thing, but when your retail industry tells you to ignore a bill, it is kind of hard to fight them on it. It is hard enough fighting the anti's, but your own kind can get right down embarrasing.

In the end you have your greedy FFLs to thank for this. We will mainly be the ones stuck with complying with it, but we will also be the ones who reap the benefits as more dealers decide not to send items in on the cheap due to the hassle of the unique identifyer system.

It kind of cracks me up how the retail industry has no problems selling out the consumer in order to make more money. What ever happened to making an honest buck? :confused:

I think Bill is right on this one. The CRPA and their lobbyists aren't in this for the Second Amendment, they are in it for their pocketbooks. :mad:

[xenophobe]

I am told that AB2521 was a bill that was sponsored by the CA-DOJ and it was not opposed by the California Association Firearms Retailers (CAFR).

Apparently it wasn't opposed by either the NRA, CRPA, or any other organization either. I'm sorry, someone dropped the ball on this one.

This bill creates a new third list, with a yearly fee that is set at $115 and may increase in accordance to the California Consumer Price Index, and makes a dealer jump through even more hoops...


I don't think the NRA ignored it.

They did not offer any notice of this bill, no summary or opinion and never issued a 'support', 'oppose', 'watch' or 'action needed'. Indeed this bill was ignored. I doubt we'll ever really know the real reason why either.

[mikehaas]

...They did not offer any notice of this bill, no summary or opinion and never issued a 'support', 'oppose', 'watch' or 'action needed'. Indeed this bill was ignored. I doubt we'll ever really know the real reason why either.
NOTE: Personal opinion alert. This is NOT from NRA.

Please consider the position our NRA is put in when gun industry lobbyists go along with such regulation. The antis love to divide and conquer, right? You won't see NRA playing into that - publicly attacking the position of another group, no matter how wrong. They may decide to push the issue from the other direction, but also maybe not. I suspect that calling you all out on opposing that bill may have created a lot of problems with NRA working OTHER issues with the gun industry - more important issues. In every instance, with every public position taken, NRA has to see all the consequences and avoid as many "unintended ones" as possible.

Remember, NRA's resources are finite (how many of you have joined your local NRA MC at http://calnra.com/volunteer/ ???) and I've told you before I believe NRA will never send you off on a wild goose chase. We (that's all of us) had much more important issues to fight last year, and we (that's all of us) won on ALL of them because we stayed focused. NRA may not have thought it an effective use of valuable grassroots to try to save a sinking ship while the crew was shooting holes in the deck.

After seeing the effort launched last year and the success achieved, I would hope few would doubt either NRA's intent or talent. But they can only work so many miracles, especially when others are focused more on $$$ than RKBA. PLEASE JOIN YOUR LOCAL NRA MC AND STRENGTHEN NRA'S POSITIONS IN SUCH MATTERS.

IMO, you folks are just starting to see/understand the problems that NRA has to deal with - that OTHERS have been causing. Remember the title of my first post, when I introduced myself to you a year ago. "NRA takes a lot of HEAT..."

Mike

[Centurion_D]

Who is the NRA? I am the NRA..we are the NRA. I believe in this organization like no other..that is why I am a member. If the NRA did not believe this would have any negative effects on us gun owners I believe them and trust their judgement. The NRA is the group who has our best interest in mind.:)

[CalNRA]

Hey Mike:

If I want to write NRA a check, who do I write it to for stuff in the state? I got a few hundred bucks originally reserved for a few lowers that need a better cause for



NOTE: Personal opinion alert. This is NOT from NRA.

Please consider the position our NRA is put in when gun industry lobbyists go along with such regulation. The antis love to divide and conquer, right? You won't see NRA playing into that - publicly attacking the position of another group, no matter how wrong. They may decide to push the issue from the other direction, but also maybe not. I suspect that calling you all out on opposing that bill may have created a lot of problems with NRA working OTHER issues with the gun industry - more important issues. In every instance, with every public position taken, NRA has to see all the consequences and avoid as many "unintended ones" as possible.

Remember, NRA's resources are finite (how many of you have joined your local NRA MC at http://calnra.com/volunteer/ ???) and I've told you before I believe NRA will never send you off on a wild goose chase. We (that's all of us) had much more important issues to fight last year, and we (that's all of us) won on ALL of them because we stayed focused. NRA may not have thought it an effective use of valuable grassroots to try to save a sinking ship while the crew was shooting holes in the deck.

After seeing the effort launched last year and the success achieved, I would hope few would doubt either NRA's intent or talent. But they can only work so many miracles, especially when others are focused more on $$$ than RKBA. PLEASE JOIN YOUR LOCAL NRA MC AND STRENGTHEN NRA'S POSITIONS IN SUCH MATTERS.

IMO, you folks are just starting to see/understand the problems that NRA has to deal with - that OTHERS have been causing. Remember the title of my first post, when I introduced myself to you a year ago. "NRA takes a lot of HEAT..."

Mike

[spaceburger]

Thanks for your input Mike Haas. I am an NRA member. The NRA should have said something to its membership. I started this thread and I have watched this response carefully. The way 2521 is now law yet its implementation is incomplete is MAJOR cause for worry.
The CDOJ has full discretion to issue authorization.
What happens if they decide it would now take two weeks instead of two minutes to issue authorization?
What happens during a CA version of Katrina? What happens if the DOJ suspends issue of any authorization?What insight does the public have on if all of a sudden they decide to be selective on who gets authorization and who does not?
I want NRA answers to all of these questions.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Thanks for your input Mike Haas. I am an NRA member. The NRA should have said something to its membership. I started this thread and I have watched this response carefully. The way 2521 is now law yet its implementation is incomplete is MAJOR cause for worry.
The CDOJ has full discretion to issue authorization.
What happens if they decide it would now take two weeks instead of two minutes to issue authorization?
What happens during a CA version of Katrina? What happens if the DOJ suspends issue of any authorization?What insight does the public have on if all of a sudden they decide to be selective on who gets authorization and who does not?
I want NRA answers to all of these questions.
It wasn't the NRA's bill. It was the industry's bill. You need to get answers from CAFR and NSSF on this one. Their response is going to be that there were gun dealers just getting their FFL and not the state documents and circumventing the system. Their answer is going to be that this is to protect against this. In other words, they took something that was already illegal and had punishments for abusing it and now everyone will be punished instead for something that was probably rarely an issue.

Why? So the retailers could make more money. That is exactly what happened here. The NRA is about your gun rights. You still have your gun rights. They are just going to cost you more.

Again, what was the NRA going to do? Fight something that their partner's the CAFR and NSSF wanted to see go through in order to support their greedy members? Give the anti's more fuel for their fire? You can't have the gun groups openly fighting each other in front of the anti's. It just isn't a good course of action.

If you want to hit back at this one, you need to find out who is in the CAFR and NSSF and remove your support for their business. In the long run we will just end up fighting our own and the divide and conquer will work. I don't like it anymore than you guys do, but what really are your options? Getting mad at the NRA for not going after a bill that doesn't infringe your rights, just increases a gun shop's toe hold on the local market is hardly what I pay them to do in California. Of course I am a gun dealer and I might be out after my own wallet. Even if I wasn't a gun dealer, I wouldn't blame the NRA for this one. Your greedy capitalistic gun shop is solely to blame for this one.

Well, not me of course. I am so small fry I just received a rude awakening about how cut throat this business can be. It amazes me that the industy put this through just to get a leg up on out of state dealers. What a pain in the arse this one is going to be.

[hoffmang]

Bootleggers and Baptists...

sigh.

-Gene

[Anthonysmanifesto]

this is a dealer bill. Maybe the lobbyist for NSSF & CAFR (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1148067&session=2005) can comment as to why this bill wasnt higher profile and how they intend to make the regs fair.

[bwiese]

this is a dealer bill. Maybe the lobbyist for NSSF & CAFR (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1148067&session=2005) can comment as to why this bill wasnt higher profile and how they intend to make the regs fair.

That's her picture? How many eons ago?

That wasn't the chick circulating around Sacto I saw last August..

[Anthonysmanifesto]

....

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Lynch & Associates
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 610
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 443-0202

Yeah, looks like the same gal, same picture is posted at a couple of them.
She has all these clients related to the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.cafr.biz/

http://www.nssf.org/

http://www.oscconline.org/

http://www.saami.org/

http://www.safariclub.org/chapter/index.cfm?action=viewall

http://www.hsshf.org/

http://www.calwildlife.org/csl.htm

Don't know what to think of all this. I can understand business needing to profit.
All the firearms business is fighting the same 2A fights we are as individuals.
Hmmm.
With the gov taking more and more money for revenues, it doesn't leave much for profit margin. So I could see industry needing more money across the board and those costs are passed on to the consumer. That same consumer doesn't have much disposable income left after gov takes its share.

Maybe we are upset with the wrong bunch. Business is trying to survive.

I'm going to bed.

Vick

[spaceburger]

tenpercent, thank you for "aligning" my thinking (setting me straight). You are correct; I was picking on the org. I think I should not end tough Monday's with spouting off on calguns sometimes. Thanks again.

[WokMaster1]

Lynch & Associates
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 610
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 443-0202

Yeah, looks like the same gal, same picture is posted at a couple of them.
She has all these clients related to the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.cafr.biz/

http://www.nssf.org/

http://www.oscconline.org/

http://www.saami.org/

http://www.safariclub.org/chapter/index.cfm?action=viewall

http://www.hsshf.org/

http://www.calwildlife.org/csl.htm

Don't know what to think of all this. I can understand business needing to profit.
All the firearms business is fighting the same 2A fights we are as individuals.
Hmmm.
With the gov taking more and more money for revenues, it doesn't leave much for profit margin. So I could see industry needing more money across the board and those costs are passed on to the consumer. That same consumer doesn't have much disposable income left after gov takes its share.

Maybe we are upset with the wrong bunch. Business is trying to survive.

I'm going to bed.

Vick

How much does it cost to hire a lobbyist? Maybe we can find one to push for a repeal of these stupid gun laws........yeah, pipe dream....:(

[Anthonysmanifesto]

How much does it cost to hire a lobbyist? Maybe we can find one to push for a repeal of these stupid gun laws........yeah, pipe dream....:(



CALGUNS with a lobbyist! that sounds like a hoot!

A Lobbyist gets paid whatever the client and the advocate come to agreement on.


for example , I think CCRKBA didnt pay a fee at all to get Jim March!

[KenpoProfessor]

CALGUNS with a lobbyist! that sounds like a hoot!

A Lobbyist gets paid whatever the client and the advocate come to agreement on.


for example , I think CCRKBA didnt pay a fee at all to get Jim March!

Hey, I need a job right now, and I can be VERY persuasive LOL.

Really a full time job taking the House and Senate members out to breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a few trips to the range for those that haven't done it.

I'll have to move to Sac though YUUKKKK LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

OH yea, forgot to add the Hookers in there for parties LOL.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Kenpo: good luck!

[hoffmang]

CALGUNS with a lobbyist! that sounds like a hoot!

A Lobbyist gets paid whatever the client and the advocate come to agreement on.


for example , I think CCRKBA didnt pay a fee at all to get Jim March!

Oh... I'm sure that CCRKBA paid... It just wasn't in cash...

I do like the idea of a Calguns.net lobbyist.

-Gene

[mikehaas]

CALGUNS with a lobbyist! that sounds like a hoot!

A Lobbyist gets paid whatever the client and the advocate come to agreement on.


for example , I think CCRKBA didnt pay a fee at all to get Jim March!
Which brings to mind an old adage "One gets what one pays for." (And spoken as the owner of a commercial reloading website. :-)

Folks, IMO, the big lesson here is that one can't assume the so-called "pro-gun" organizations exhibit basic competence or have the Second Amendment as their concern. While I did not know of AB 2521, this kind of issue coming from others is nothing new to me.

Take your favorite pro-gun group - ESPECIALLY if you THINK you've been "frustrated with NRA" and frequently pump another as superior - and ask yourself...

1. Is the board elected by the membership? (NRA: YES)

2. Does the board release regular financial reports to the membership of what it does with their money? (NRA: YES)

3. Does the organization host an annual members' meeting in which the membership may submit resolutions and vote on issues? (NRA: YES)

4. Does the organization try to ACTIVELY involve the membership in lobbying legislation via meetings, volunteer opportunities and other hand-on activities? (NRA: YES, in California especially - MONTHLY meetings all cross the state!)

5. Can the membership-at-large nominate candidates for the board and have them appear on the ballot? (NRA: YES)

6. Do normal members serve in official committee capacity and have a full vote on that committee? (NRA: YES)

7. Is the organization responsive to the questions and concerns of it's membership? (NRA: YES - you've all see it in this very thread and within DAYS of your questions! Anything from any other org? IMO, maybe eventually you might see some COVERING THEIR A-- ON THEIR WEBSITE like we saw last year!)

8. Does the organization value and welcome your ideas, comments, queries and suggestions? (NRA: YES, obviously)

9. Is your 'organization' a REAL organization, and not just a few folks and a P.O. Box? (NRA: YES, a $250-million/year corporation covered by corporate state law that imposes real fiduciary responsibility on the leaders to it's members)

10. Does your organization actually STAFF full-time professional lobbyists or do they simply HIRE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS to take their name? (NRA: FULL-TIME STAFF)

I'm sure others may be able to think up other important things to consider. Point is, anymore, one needs to know where and for what their hard-earned, valuable RKBA dollars are going for. IMO, NRA has something that none of the others have - oversight. NRA members are not just donors. They can be, but they can also get very involved in the process. And that's where I REALLY know what I'm talking about, if I do say so myself.

Mike

[mark3lb]

Does this mean to stock up on OLLs lwers and AKs before July 2008?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Does this mean to stock up on OLLs lwers and AKs before July 2008?
I don't think so. They will still come in. Guys like Cold War Shooters, DD's Ranch, and Lanworld will still import lowers despite the new regulations and their prices are pretty reasonable. I will still bring in lowers for my local customers from my outside sources.

You just might find a few less gunbroker deals.

[6172crew]

I don't think so. They will still come in. Guys like Cold War Shooters, DD's Ranch, and Lanworld will still import lowers despite the new regulations and their prices are pretty reasonable. I will still bring in lowers for my local customers from my outside sources.

You just might find a few less gunbroker deals.

I thought federal firearms licensees are required to obtain a unique verification number for the recipient (if, and only if, the recipient is also a federal firearms licensee) from the California Department of Justice via the internet. This requirement is akin to the EZ Check system implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
requires the same seller to include a copy of the unique verification number along with the firearm to the recipient.

This requirement does not apply to private party sales processed through a California dealer where the out of state seller is an individual and not a federal firearms licensee.

Wes, why would we see less gunbroker deals out there?:confused:

[Nahuatl]

I've just received the following from NRA:

[I]----
As promised, I looked into the AB2521 issue from the 2006 California Legislative Session........

This requirement does not apply to private party sales processed through a California dealer where the out of state seller is an individual and not a federal firearms licensee................

Mike

From the AG's anyalysis:

11.Prohibits federal firearms dealers from importing or
receiving firearms from any source unless listed on the
CLEFFL, the CLFD or the CLFM. Doing so constitutes a
misdemeanor.

And from the same nonsense. (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_cfa_20060628_135647_sen_floor.html)

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Office of the Attorney General
states in support of the bill:

"Prior to 2002, holders of Federal Firearms Licenses
(FFLs), and those posing fraudulently as FFL holders,
could easily circumvent California's firearms
regulations by merely claiming to out-of-state firearms
vendors that they held an FFL. Vendors, who are not
required to verify the authenticity of a licensee,
would then ship firearms to such recipients without any
sort of notification to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) or the California
Department of Justice (DOJ).........blah blah blah

The NRA interpretation of the bill doesn't seem to fit the AG's analysis or the intent, regardless how you read it. Something will change. I doubt private parties will be able to ship to CA once this is done. What did I miss?

[jemaddux]

As a few here know I work in the movie industry as my full tme life and do the firearms part time. Most that I have talked to consider this bill very serious and consider it to be a major problem for all of us. I know what Mike had posted from the NRA but the industry people here have had thier Attnys look at the bill and said this is a very fast way to shut some of the sales going on down and also and fast way to cause prices to go up with the stores. I posted this before, I finally got my two Mausers on the way here after 9 days of red tape. How many out of state dealers are going to do all this leg work for 9 days when they can sell it in other states with no problem? The Bill states that anything from FFL to FFL and that would include manufactures, dealers and so on. So this would mean that every order the Turners did would have to be checked by say Glock, Savage or who ever and then Turners would have to have people checking all this on thier end. So who is going to pay for all the extra paperwork to be done? Other things to think about also is the fact of what is already happening, when you input the information will you have to say what you are shipping and if you do who is to say that t won't be denied? I agree and respect many of the people here and what they have to say but as far as the union reps go and people here in my industry, they are saying this is going to be a nightmare and is going to cause more problems then we can see right now. Basicly look at you card reader that didn't work on the system they told us we had to use, how long did that take to get that figured out?

[jemaddux]

Does this put an end to ordering lowers and Wasr10's from out of state, basically killing OLLs?



That is what it seems to me to be, just a paper way of slowing things down.

Right now people have been asking for the WASR 22. We all know they are legal but the manufacture wants something on file and so does a few other dealers that carry them. I have asked for a letter from DOJ from back in Nov and so far all I get is a call or an email saying they are still looking into this and seeing if it is legal or not. There is nothing stopping them from doing the same thing with firearms they don't want in the state and also there is nothing stopping them from harassing shops that carry OLLs. Right now you do a DROS on one and they can only see that there is a long gun sale, with this they may be able to say well so and so is selling XYZ 15s and we will have to stop by and see what we can do about this:mad: .

[Inoxmark]

It kind of cracks me up how the retail industry has no problems selling out the consumer in order to make more money.
Greed can never lead to anything good, they may have just sold out themselves.

Armed with this new law DOJ can shut down any FFL pretty much at will, all they have to say at the audit is "How did you receive this gun? What is that number you are showing to us? We have no records of ever issuing this number! By the way, you might as well remain silent because you are being charged with misdemeanor.", and that would be the end of the FFL's career.

Given multiple anecdotal cases of DOJ screwing up and being unable to find handgun registrations, there's nothing to show that they would be able (or have any desire) to handle many more records of firearm shipment authorizations any more reliably.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Greed can never lead to anything good, they may have just sold out themselves.

Armed with this new law DOJ can shut down any FFL pretty much at will, all they have to say at the audit is "How did you receive this gun? What is that number you are showing to us? We have no records of ever issuing this number! By the way, you might as well remain silent because you are being charged with misdemeanor.", and that would be the end of the FFL's career.

Given multiple anecdotal cases of DOJ screwing up and being unable to find handgun registrations, there's nothing to show that they would be able (or have any desire) to handle many more records of firearm shipment authorizations any more reliably.

LOL. The DOJ is not some great all powerful organization that can do what they want at will. They can try and claim I didn't get the right number, but I will have the number and the sending FFL will have the number. Do you really think they are going to try and play dumb and claim it never happened when there will be evidence that it did? Do you think the DOJ just comes in and charges people with misdemeanors out of the blue and tells people to remain silent? Claiming they will be able to shut down gun shops "at will" is a little much.

Sure they do some crazy things, but they aren't stupid. They aren't going to pick battles they can't win.

If I am a small time FFL out of state that sells on gunbroker, I very well might decided I don't want to hastle with getting some approval code to send guns to California. Those guys don't make much money as it is, let alone enough to mess with our new obtrusive laws.

I still haven't seen in writing where this won't affect out of state shipments into the state from non-dealers other than the NRA said so. As was pointed out, we still haven't seen the final regs on this in order to know how much is going to be in it. Only time will tell.

[xenophobe]

Umm... yeah, this was a manufacturer's bill. Notice how quick people are to jump on the manfacturers and distributors because they didn't oppose it, yet don't blame the NRA for not opposing it.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_cfa_20060628_135647_sen_floor.html

SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/06)

Office of the Attorney General (source)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California Million Mom March
Chief of Police, City of Fresno
City of Sacramento
Legal Community Against Violence



Even after reading that analysis, it's hard to really determine what this law will do until regulations are drafted.

It does certainly appear that C&R license holders may be targeted, as well as FFLs held by city and government agencies.

It also gives pretty decent leniency to the DOJ to determine what will be necessary to 'approve' a transfer. Perhaps each single approval # must be submitted to the DOJ with Make, Model and Serial # as well. So it may not be instant approval.

Hmm...

This is really a pesky bill. It's so poorly written, that DOJ will have a field day determining regulations and procedure.

[formerTexan]

Here's a chance for Jerry Brown to withdraw support from his office on this bill, since Lockyer was the orig. source, if Brown withdraws support quietly, then it may die a quiet death. Lets see if he can live up to what he said about not making more laws.

[xenophobe]

Here's a chance for Jerry Brown to withdraw support from his office on this bill, since Lockyer was the orig. source, if Brown withdraws support quietly, then it may die a quiet death. Lets see if he can live up to what he said about not making more laws.

They've already been voted on, passed, and signed by the governator...

Too late, Brown has no choice.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Umm... yeah, this was a manufacturer's bill. Notice how quick people are to jump on the manfacturers and distributors because they didn't oppose it, yet don't blame the NRA for not opposing it. What was the NRA supposed to do? Fight the industry that supports them on something they wanted to go through? The NRA is supposed to protect your 2nd Amendment rights, not your pocketbooks. This bill isn't going to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. It is going to be a pain in butt for gun dealers, but at the same time it is going to give us further leverage in eliminating out of state competition and in the end make big time FFLs richer. I don't blame the NRA for not opposing an industry bill. I blame the industry for being greedy.

Basically as consumers you were screwed by the industry that takes your money. However, it is the industry that is going to have to comply with all of this garbage, so they kind of get what they deserve.

This is not some big gun rights bill. It was an industry bill that has an impact on the industry and eventually on your wallets, not the 2nd Amendment.

There will still be FFLs that ship items in and there will still be FFLs in the state. You will still get your guns, they are just going to be more expensive. The NRA is not to blame for this, the firearms industry, your representatives are, and to a large part us for not paying attention and fighting this.

[paradox]

What was the NRA supposed to do? Fight the industry that supports them on something they wanted to go through? The NRA is supposed to protect your 2nd Amendment rights, not your pocketbooks. This bill isn't going to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. It is going to be a pain in butt for gun dealers, but at the same time it is going to give us further leverage in eliminating out of state competition and in the end make big time FFLs richer. I don't blame the NRA for not opposing an industry bill. I blame the industry.

Thus the reason why our government was originally based on free-enterprise. This kind of crap always happens when guilds, unions, state-owned-enterprises, etc take over.

[xenophobe]

What was the NRA supposed to do? Fight the industry that supports them on something they wanted to go through? The NRA is supposed to protect your 2nd Amendment rights, not your pocketbooks. This bill isn't going to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. It is going to be a pain in butt for gun dealers, but at the same time it is going to give us further leverage in eliminating out of state competition and in the end make big time FFLs richer. I don't blame the NRA for not opposing an industry bill. I blame the industry for being greedy.

Whoa tiger. Don't get your pannies in a bunch. I'm not jumping on the NRA, but I'm also not quick to point the finger where it might not belong without proof.

Please show me any evidence of where this bill was backed by the industry.


SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/06)

Office of the Attorney General (source)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California Million Mom March
Chief of Police, City of Fresno
City of Sacramento
Legal Community Against Violence


So you're saying the Gun Industry is also working with the Brady Campaign, The Million Mom March, Legal Community Against Violence, the DOJ, etc...?

I want to see you say yes to this question.



Basically as consumers you were screwed by the industry that takes your money. However, it is the industry that is going to have to comply with all of this garbage, so they kind of get what they deserve.

This is not some big gun rights bill. It was an industry bill that has an impact on the industry and eventually on your wallets, not the 2nd Amendment.

There will still be FFLs that ship items in and there will still be FFLs in the state. You will still get your guns, they are just going to be more expensive. The NRA is not to blame for this, the firearms industry, your representatives are, and to a large part us for not paying attention and fighting this.

You sound like a specific minority always blaming "the man" for every problem. :rolleyes:

[mikehaas]

Umm... yeah, this was a manufacturer's bill. Notice how quick people are to jump on the manfacturers and distributors because they didn't oppose it, yet don't blame the NRA for not opposing it.
...
As opposed to you, who clearly wants to rag ONLY on NRA because of something someone else did. (yawn - NRA bashing is so boring)

How may times does it have to be posted? How many different ways?
NRA ISN'T GOING TO GO TO WAR WITH THE GUN INDUSTRY. Do you understand why that would be a disaster for all? DO you really need that explained?

Now, you haven't said what NRA SHOULD have done (even though 10percent has asked you TWICE) - it's just they whatever they do, it's not good enough. Uh-huh.

Now, I strongly suspect that NRA made their opinions known to those who advanced this bill. Now, why don't YOU try doing the same and get off the bad attitude? Go ahead, try complaining about the RIGHT people for a change.

Ah, one more thing. Regarding AB2111, LAST YEAR'S pro-gun bill that, for some reason, you keep whining about (I believe that's an accurate description of your incessant complaining at this point.)

Some of the same people here that you want to divert attention away from (preferring instead to have people rag on NRA) WATERED DOWN AB2111. It was a better bill for gun owners in NRA's original form, before "they" got mixed into it. But you insist on trying to get people to bash NRA, the group that keeps having trouble with these turkeys.

I hope you're a better shot at the range or else no one is safe.

Mike

[mikehaas]

So you're saying the Gun Industry is also working with the Brady Campaign, The Million Mom March, Legal Community Against Violence, the DOJ, etc...?
That's a ridiculous statement and is indicative of the hostility expressed in many of your posts. If you expect me, at least, to read/consider/respond to your posts, you're going to have to clean up your act.

Mike

[tenpercentfirearms]

Whoa tiger. Don't get your pannies in a bunch. I'm not jumping on the NRA, but I'm also not quick to point the finger where it might not belong without proof.The proof that CAFR and NSSF supported this is the fact that they didn't oppose it. Dealer and industry bills do not go through unoposed unless they want them to. This dealer bill that will be a direct impact on dealer's went through unopposed by the retailer's association. I wonder why that is?

Second, of course the CAFR and NSSF aren't going to admit to working against the consumer to get a gun bill in that benefits their greedy members. Read between the lines.

Xeno, you wouldn't like it if I insulted you and said, "Don't get your panties in a bunch" so why do you do so to me? I answered you with logic and reasoning and you went the low road. Grow up.
So you're saying the Gun Industry is also working with the Brady Campaign, The Million Mom March, Legal Community Against Violence, the DOJ, etc...?

I want to see you say yes to this question.
Yes, the gun industry used the anti-gunners to further their member's agenda of limiting out of state imports of firearms by undercutting mom and pop FFLs. I took your little dare, what now? I called your bluff, lets see what you have.
You sound like a specific minority always blaming "the man" for every problem. :rolleyes:
Again, you try and insult me by making baseless claims about minorities and blame. I tire of your one liners without substance. Re-read what I said. I specifically pointed the blame not at "the man", but at the firearms industry, the representatives who voted for this, and you and me for not catching it and stopping it. You don't want to address that though, you would rather have a cutsie little one liner that makes no damn sense.

I tire of your self-righteous attitude when it is pretty obvious you don't understand what is going on here. Either debate what I said with substance other than your petty one liners or shove off.

[xenophobe]

As opposed to you, who clearly wants to rag ONLY on NRA because of something someone else did. (yawn - NRA bashing is so boring)

Sorry. You seem to think the NRA is GOD and can never do wrong. NRA is above any mistakes or errors and even considering that something might have slipped by them, they may have made an error in judgment, or aren't always telling the truth as they should is pure blasphemy.

I am a member of the NRA. I am extremely happy with the way they've dealt with California in the last year. I'm sorry if I don't fall into line like a mindless drone chanting the NRA mantra like a zombie.

Yes, I will question what the NRA does. Last I remember, this is a free country and that understanding the reasoning behind certain decisions is my right. Especially as a paying member.

Your 'greater than thou' 'submit or die' attitude is doing more harm for the NRA than simply being intellectually honest rather than dodging the issue with statements that if I question anything I'm the enemy BS.


The antis love to divide and conquer, right? You won't see NRA playing into that - publicly attacking the position of another group, no matter how wrong. They may decide to push the issue from the other direction, but also maybe not.

I didn't respond to your last reply to me because I didn't know what to make of it. But now I will call you on your BS. Read what you posted and remember what your very vocal and position about 'the others' was.

You are a walking contradiction.

I was NOT attacking anything, just wondering WTF was up with that. I'm sorry the NRA is above explaining themselves when someone asks a question.

[xenophobe]

Xeno, you wouldn't like it if I insulted you and said, "Don't get your panties in a bunch" so why do you do so to me? I answered you with logic and reasoning and you went the low road. Grow up.

Wes. I sincerely apologize for speaking to you in such tones. I'm sorry I am not above such things at times.

I'm just starting to get really annoyed with the NRA Koresh Cult here. I'm hearing that "the gun industry" is responsible for anti-gun legislation directly supported by CADOJ, The Brady Bunch, MMM, etc...

What is so wrong with asking for solid proof with serious allegations? Please tell me.




Yes, the gun industry used the anti-gunners to further their member's agenda of limiting out of state imports of firearms by undercutting mom and pop FFLs. I took your little dare, what now? I called your bluff, lets see what you have.

I'm certainly amazed you really believe that.



Again, you try and insult me by making baseless claims about minorities and blame. I tire of your one liners without substance. Re-read what I said. I specifically pointed the blame not at "the man", but at the firearms industry, the representatives who voted for this, and you and me for not catching it and stopping it. You don't want to address that though, you would rather have a cutsie little one liner that makes no damn sense.

I tire of your self-righteous attitude when it is pretty obvious you don't understand what is going on here. Either debate what I said with substance other than your petty one liners or shove off.

Your blind faith is impressive.

So the NRA is willing to blindly let the firearms industry collude with the anti-gunners for profit?

That is what you appear to be saying.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Fair enough Xeno, lets keep this civil.
So the NRA is willing to blindly let the firearms industry collude with the anti-gunners for profit?

That is what you appear to be saying.Ok, you might not believe me, but YES!

Here is what happened. The industry saw their chance to slow down out of state, undercutting sales by implementing this system. We all know nothing needs fixed. It is already illegal to deal firearms in this state without the proper licensing, we do not need this new system. All it does is make it harder for dealers to operate and reduce competition when people start to say, "Screw California!"

What most people don't know is that all of these lobbyists and everyone else in Sacramento are constantly cutting deals. They give some here, they take some there. This goes for all of them. The NRA, the Brady's, the industry, the unions, everyone.

The other interesting thing is some of these lobbyists represent numerous clients. When you represent numerous clients, you are not solely dedicated to one source. You might have to cut some deals on some issues and sacrafice some clients to please others.

So when this bill came up, it is possible the NRA starting looking into it. It is not unimaginable that the industry lobbyist specifically went to the NRA and said, "This is an industry bill. This will stop unqualified dealers from breaking the law. This is an industry bill and we do not want you screwing with it."

At this point what should have the NRA done? Should they have fought a dealer bill that only affects dealers (paper work wise), has little direct effect on the 2nd Amendment, and spent some of their capital fighting their own partners?

Seriously think about it for a second. How would a dealer bill like this that only effects dealers, not be opposed by the industry? If the industry did not want this to go through, wouldn't they have enlisted the support of the NRA to try and stop it? Why didn't they?

I agree, it might be possible everyone was asleep at the wheel on this one. Right now I only have what I hear from Mike Haas and the NRA. It would be interesting if we could call up the CAFR rep and ask them what happened with this bill. In fact, I would love to do that since I am A) a gun owner and B) an FFL.

I know it is a dead horse, but look at AB2111. In its original form it would have made the Approved Roster of Handguns for Sale permanent!!! How did a bill that started off like that suddenly change? It isn't a far stretch to figure out who would have come out the worst in that scenario. The manufacturers. They don't want you buying used guns so easily. They like it when they can drop a gun and force you to buy one of their new guns on the list.

The question is would the industry sell us out for profit? Hello Bill Ruger! Hello Smith & Wesson. These guys are businessmen. Greedy capitalists. Not every company is owned by Ronnie Barrett. Some are big time corporations run not by gun owners, but investors who don't care about the 2nd Amendment, only dividends.

So yes, I am saying the industry would sell us out for profit. That is what capitalists do. They maximize profit. Again, this bill only deals with dealers and profit. It doesn't limit gun sales. The big wholesalers and manufacturers will still import guns into the state. The only thing that is going to change is we have to keep track of that stupid number and the price of guns might rise! The industry doesn't lose much in getting this in, but has a lot to gain. The 2nd Amendment won't suffer much.

Sure you could make the argument that less people will buy guns, but that is just silly. Think of all of the nuts on this forum who have been spending money like there is no tomorrow with all of this OLL hoopla. They are hooked. They won't stop buying just because the price goes up. Sure some poor sucker who can only afford one gun for self defense might lose out, but the industry doesn't care about that guy. They care about the people who spend real money on really expensive guns.

Really, we need to contact the CAFR and see their side of the story. Does anyone know how we can do that?

[6172crew]

Wes. I sincerely apologize for speaking to you in such tones. I'm sorry I am not above such things at times.

I'm just starting to get really annoyed with the NRA Koresh Cult here. I'm hearing that "the gun industry" is responsible for anti-gun legislation directly supported by CADOJ, The Brady Bunch, MMM, etc...

What is so wrong with asking for solid proof with serious allegations? Please tell me.
I'm certainly amazed you really believe that.

Your blind faith is impressive.

So the NRA is willing to blindly let the firearms industry collude with the anti-gunners for profit?

That is what you appear to be saying.

Whatever:rolleyes: , Id think you would have atleast waited until the facts came out before pointing fingers at anyone. Im still not sure what happend but you had the NRA pegged in your first post.:cool:

Asking why the NRA didnt do this or that is asking why me or the other NRA supported didnt tell you, my question is why didnt you know what was going on and why didnt you let everyone know.:confused:

The fact is the NRA is about the only group out there who I can say for sure that is on my side and it has nothing to do with kool-aid, it has to do with getting more guys involved and not having this happen again.

[xenophobe]

Wes, we're both aware of how the system works. We do know that deals get cut, one side looks the other way for a trade, and that industry and private individuals are nearly always at odds.

Much of what you state is fact, but is mixed with a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, which is fine, but I like to see it separated a bit better. Perhaps I am picky in this regard.

I can speculate all day what had happened, but if you re-read my initial posts questioning the details of this bill, I left out anything that I could not substantiate.

Fact: AB2521 was created by DOJ and sponsored by Brady and MMM.
Fact: AB2521 never appeared on any NRA notification list
Fact: AB2521 was not opposed by the firearms industry
Fact: AB2521 was not opposed by the NRA

Assumptions:
You can assume that the bill was sponsored and supported by the firearms industry. That means you should also assume it was supported by NRA using that same logic. At the very least it was ignored by the NRA for reasons not publicly stated. That does not mean it was supported by the industry and that the NRA turned a blind eye. All one can state is what I've listed above as fact.

Now here's where it gets interesting... The NRA either new about it and didn't care, new about it and traded it for a favor, or completely ignored it or failed to notice it.

Fact: The NRA has publicly supported/opposed bills contrary to other groups or industries in the past.

Legitimate questions:
Why was this bill different?
Why wasn't this bill on the radar?

Answer so far:
Because the firearms industries strong armed the NRA into ignoring or not opposing it.

I'm sorry, I don't believe this line, and yes I will question it, if not publicly state that this is not consistent with NRA Alert policy. This still doesn't answer why the NRA did not even mention this bill. This doesn't explain why the NRA would allow to be persuaded by the industry.

Again, I'm aware of what the inside scoop may have been. Sources higher than Mike Haas have been very tight lipped and dismissive in questions addressed by these actions. Am I troubled by this? Am I allowed to say yes without being labeled a traitor?

I know that the NRA can't do everything. Thinking otherwise is ludicrous. Taking notice about these discrepancies and making note of them is not ANTI-NRA. I'm just making the statement that this bill flew through the legislature and was signed by the governor and many people who would have fought it because it is bad law never got the chance and now we have even more laws on the books that people like you have to deal with, as if there wasn't enough red tape....

Anyways, I'll drop it because in this case the NRA tells me that I shouldn't even care.

[xenophobe]

Whatever:rolleyes: , Id think you would have atleast waited until the facts came out before pointing fingers at anyone. Im still not sure what happend but you had the NRA pegged in your first post.

In my first post? You're kidding right? Okay, I'll cut and paste for you because your 'rewrite history' attitude is exactly what I'm describing about the Koresh Cult mentality of seeing your own reality from that of the truth. In fact it isn't until my 21st post, which you can read at the bottom, that I get attacked for.

In my fifth post I state that the NRA should have ignored the microstamping bill instead of this. Is that what you're talking about? That is offensive? That is 'attacking the nra'? Come on.

Where do I attack anything? Where do I "have the NRA pegged in my first post" or even the first 15?

Please stick to the facts...

My first post:
With an understaffed Department of Firearms at the DOJ, this will only delay transactions. It appears it might even give DOJ right of refusal to do a transfer they think is illegal (read: no more off-list receivers).

It says nothing about issuing unique transaction #'s on a compulsory basis, so this bill has me really worried.

This is much worse legislation than AB2111, and worse than SB-15, IMO.

I know this isn't actually part of the law, but describing what it does:

My second post:
So what the law can do is allow DOJ discretion as to which FFL is approved RSR or Davidsons or Ruger for example, but deny to CWS, DD's or Smith & Wesson.

And what information is required by the DOJ? If it requires a make, model and serial number, this is underground registration of long arms, as they will maintain records, and it also states that a dealer must maintain additional records.

So the only firearms exempt are the ones currently sitting on a dealer's shelf or in a private individual's collection.

Wow... how did this one slip by? :(

My third post:
Well, with Roberti-Roos, AW Permits and such were supposed to be issued to people who wanted to buy or own AWs, but since it wasn't specified in the law, they regulated them away from issuing unless you had a specific need.

I don't see anywhere in that bill where anything is compulsory, and by the phrasing of a few things, it seems like DOJ will have final say if a firearm is allowable or not.

Seems like a way for them to keep track of what comes in too.

My fourth post:
Okay, so there will be another charge to add on top of DROS.

It's a state sponsored scam to make more money by making a dealer pay for an 'authorization number' for each firearm that is shipped to him...

Just... Wow...

My fifth post:
Wow... the NRA should have ignored the microstamping bill instead of this one.

At least the microstamping bill, once enacted, would show everyone exactly how this technology can't work. So instead of having a useless bill introduced, we have this one that severely limits transactions, and introduces a new fee to be added on top of the DROS that the DOJ already charges. Nice.

There better be good explanation of why this bill was passed without opposition....:mad:

My sixth post:
Yes, it does impact interstate commerce in a discriminatory way. Assault weapons may not be purchased by or transferred to individuals within the state. Legislative intent was to issue permits to those who wished to collect, own or sell them. After-the-fact regulatory implementation halted any normal commerce on items deemed 'assault weapons' and prevented issuance of permits unless a specific 'needs' could be demonstrated.

What this new law appears to do is go far beyond discriminating, but completely regulates interstate commerce.

My seventh post:
Sorry to hear about that J. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. It effectively bans any firearm DOJ doesn't want in the state using their discretion...

My eighth post:
Thank you. Yes. I understand how you describe it to be illegal federally, however my example wasn't really one that violated interstate commerce laws, but did limit it, in a fashion.


Out of state buyer 'Arnold' can purchase an item from any dealer he so chooses, except for a California dealer or private individual who has not been granted a permit. He may also choose to buy it locally from a dealer or private individual, or another individual out of state. However, a California private individual may not sell it to the other out of state private individual because he must have a licensed FFL AW Permit holder send the firearm out of state on his behalf. It does limit interstate commerce, but as you note, may not actually break any laws. However in state individuals or FFLs who do not have a permit are restricted to not participate in these transactions. The important thing you must remember is that these permits were supposed to be 'shall-issue' to those who were eligible, but after passing had their original intent twisted by regulation.

I haven't been trying to post a correlation, but just a similar circumstance on how commerce was restricted beyond what it should have been only because DOJ regulatory decisions made it happen.

My 9th post:
If that's the case and the California FFL receives the firearm, they're guilty of a misdemeanor. And what's the process for the out of state dealer to contest a denial to ship legal firearms here? It's stated that it may be required for both the receiving and sending FFLs log into this site... So there will be a new fee, there will be a possible requirement of stating the contents of the particular shipment, and possibly a new DROS entry field 'approval number' which would link a particular package or firearm to each purchaser... this is registration. I agree I'm pushing the boundaries of what I read, but it's all plausible...

My 10th post:
Actually the DOJ will be able to charge a yearly $115 fee for this new Centralized List. I saw it but didn't make notice of where it was.



Are you sure you quoted all of the changes?

My 11th post:
Good job Gene. Still I wonder what Jeremy was going through...

My 12th post:
ATF already has ezcheck.



What liability coverage in AB2111? There is none. Not directly or even indirectly addressed as liability coverage. AB2111 was a give to the liberals by the NRA. It had to be. It passed unopposed. BTW, Bush signed the Consumer Liability Act which provides actual stated protection to dealers and manufacturers, and offers real protection. Again, AB2111 does not even imply protection to dealers, all it did was force the DOJ to make a dealer re-check the list before delivering a handgun. That's all. One tiny little extra statutory hoop to jump though. Nothing else.

My 13th post:
Aren't you tired of blindly following the NRA talking points on AB2111.

Please cite anywhere in the bill where it actually offers ANY protection whatsoever. Directly or implied. tick tick tick

EDIT: I just read your response. You keep on going in circles Anthony. Reading your reply, you can't cite one instance where the bill actually says it offere any liability protection from the dealer or consumer.

My 14th post:
Gene, Wes, from the wording, this creates a new Centralized list (centralized list of exempt federal firearms licensees (CLEFFL)), not to be confused with the current Centralized List of Firearms Dealers. So to do business in California, or to someone in California from out of state, you need to be on one or the other.

My 15th post:
You are being very precise, but at this point, without the regulatory language being known, nothing can be known to any exacting detail.

My 21st post that got the heat started:
Apparently it wasn't opposed by either the NRA, CRPA, or any other organization either. I'm sorry, someone dropped the ball on this one.

Wow.... that's such an attack against the NRA, huh? Umm... yeah, if you replace the word SOMEONE with "NRA".... I clearly did not point a finger at anyone specifically, did I. :rolleyes:


You want me to continue?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Answer so far:
Because the firearms industries strong armed the NRA into ignoring or not opposing it.

I'm sorry, I don't believe this line, and yes I will question it, if not publicly state that this is not consistent with NRA Alert policy. This still doesn't answer why the NRA did not even mention this bill. This doesn't explain why the NRA would allow to be persuaded by the industry.
I just happend to disagree with your answer here. I counter that why wouldn't the NRA leave a dealer bill alone if the CAFR asked them to? Again, this bill really only changes what dealers have to do and long term will raise consumer prices, but guns will continue to come into the state. No one's Second Amendment is harmed by this. So why wouldn't the NRA leave it alone if requested by the industry?

Is it a bad bill? Yes. Will it be a pain in my butt? Yes. Will it stop the California gun enthusiast from buying firearms? No.

So my question again is why would the NRA buck the industry if they asked them to leave a dealer bill alone? We know why the industry would ask them to leave this bill alone, it benefits them.

I think where we might be disagreeing is what does this bill change and who does it effect? A bill that only adds bullcrap to the dealers and will only eventually increase profit could very well be left alone by the NRA when asked by the industry. Had the industry not said anything, what do you think the NRA might have done? If the bill was bad for the 2nd Amendment, might have they bucked the industry and fought it anyway? Possibly.

Well we won't know the answer to that now. Now we just have to deal with it. All this whole thing teaches me is that our industry is definitely not just motivated by the principles of freedom. The industry is capatilistic and they definitely are motivated by profit. It appears that there are forces in the industry who would and will sacrafice the consumer in order to make more money.

Talk about an eye opener.

[fairfaxjim]

All this whole thing teaches me is that our industry is definitely not just motivated by the principles of freedom. The industry is capatilistic and they definitely are motivated by profit. It appears that there are forces in the industry who would and will sacrafice the consumer in order to make more money.

Talk about an eye opener.
Wes,
This is not new news. Bill Ruger vs. hi-cap magazines comes to mind, for one. BTW, a lot of attorneys, and others, on both sides of the 2A argument make a tidy living from representing one side or the other.

[SemiAutoSam]

It might not stop California residents from buying firearms but it will slow down to a crawl people buying things off of Gun Broker and other online websites and or private parties that in the past could have sent a rifle to a FFL in California but now wont with all of the paperwork they would have to deal with. California will just be Bypassed. I hope it was worth it to them as TO know who and or what entity pushed this bill through they will not be getting anymore business from me and anyone I can influence to not buy guns in California and this is how the DOJ gets its wish.

Ill buy what ever I want in another jurisdiction and stay the hell out of buying anything related to Firearms in California. In my opinion the firearms retailers cut their own throats with this LAW and I hope they die a painful death.

Is it a bad bill? Yes. Will it be a pain in my butt? Yes. Will it stop the California gun enthusiast from buying firearms? No.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ill buy what ever I want in another jurisdiction and stay the hell out of buying anything related to Firearms in California. In my opinion the firearms retailers cut their own throats with this LAW and I hope they die a painful death.

You might not buy guns here anymore, but the average guy won't understand why his guns are more expensive or that it was the industry that sold him out. He is going to continue to buy guns and since it was the Brady Group that signed off on it, he will blame them and buy more guns to support his local dealer.

Nothing is going to change except the price of guns. Guys will still buy guns because they are guns. It is a disease. Like Pirate always says, BRD...spread it.

That is what kind of impresses me by this whole thing. The industry just screwed everyone and there isn't much anyone is going to do about if they even ever figure out the truth. Very sneaky.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Really, we need to contact the CAFR and see their side of the story. Does anyone know how we can do that?

http://www.cafr.biz/


Vick

[Anthonysmanifesto]

registered lobbyists are on the Secretary of State website

[Anthonysmanifesto]

hashing things out like this , I hope, will lead to a great understanding of the process

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Its just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Vick

[xenophobe]

I think where we might be disagreeing is what does this bill change and who does it effect? A bill that only adds bullcrap to the dealers and will only eventually increase profit could very well be left alone by the NRA when asked by the industry. Had the industry not said anything, what do you think the NRA might have done? If the bill was bad for the 2nd Amendment, might have they bucked the industry and fought it anyway? Possibly.

Yes, we both agree this is bad law. We both know it will only give you more headaches. I'm personally against giving you more big headaches and more paperwork to deal with. That is absolute last thing I would ever want to do.

If Gene's analysis is correct, assumptions about the 'firearms industry' actually asking for this are weak. It would do nothing for big business at all. If this law only applies in-state, the only ones who benefit from this law is CADOJ and anti-gun groups for making you jump through more hoops. Whereas, SB-15 actually limits competition from manufacturers who do not do as much volume, AB2521 does not provide any benefit to distributors or dealers out of state.

Both you and I have more similar and fearful conclusions as to what this bill might do than what Gene believes. If it's as bad as we thought, big business would be hurt by this more than the small guy by having to comply. This means additional recordkeeping, modifying software applications and databases to keep and store this information, altering corporate infrastructure, if even only slightly, makes them pay a yearly fee and does not offer any benefit?

But the truth is that until the regulatory language is in place, we're not sure exactly how these new laws will be applied. Especially since even in the law itself, great latitude has been expressly given to the DOJ to implement the regulatory provisions how they choose. (as if that wasn't standard anyways)

In any event, I've been attacked for just stating that the (NRA, CRPA, GOC, etc...) publicly ignored this bill. I only see proof in the Legislative Analysis which confirmed DOJ wrote this bill, confirmed Brady, MMM and other anti-gunners supported it, and in fact, I'm saying that I don't think the NRA would let the firearms industry get away with directly colluding with the anti-gun groups for the sake of profit and we can't even agree on that. Crazy, eh?


Talk about an eye opener.

Yes, in more ways than one.

[hoffmang]

I'm just waiting for the regs. We'll see them and we'll get a chance to comment on them either way.

-Gene

[tenpercentfirearms]

What you missed Xeno was that after 7/1/08, no dealer in the state will be able to accept a firearm from any source without having the authorization number or that dealer will be guilty of a misdemeanor. This will effect all sales. Sure a guy out of state could send in a gun without an authorization number, but once I receive it without an authorization number, I will be held accountable.

Maybe that is why you haven't seen what I think is so obvious. Every dealer is going to have to do this. Every dealer out of state will have to do this. This will have a negative effect on out of staters as they already don't like dealing with us, this will just add one more nail to the coffin. The only good news for dealers is there will always be some wholesalers who will do what they have to do to sell to us. I don't know about the little guy who doesn't have lawyers or the time to figure out what is legal and what is not. So will he continue to mark guns up $30 and ship them in to California from gunbroker? Probably not. So transfers will decrease while the general demand for guns remains and the retailers who deal with big wholesalers will continue to get in guns while the consumer loses some options.

However, I have already figured out how I will comply. I am simply going to write the number down in my bound book with each firearm that comes in. When I receive it, I will write the number in with the receiving FFL information. For outgoing guns in state I will write it in the out going. No complicated computer systems, no new storage boxes. The info will be right there where it needs to be, with the A&D book with the firearm information I am already required to keep.

[hoffmang]

Gents,

I also think that when you get a package that didn't have the number, you'll go online to the website and get a new number for yourself and put it in your book.

Website and cryptographic access controls I know much better than firearms law. DOJ can't come up with a scheme that keeps you from having someone sign up and get you a number for a shipment to yourself. Also, DOJ can't require an out of state FFL to do squat at the end of the day.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

What you missed Xeno was that after 7/1/08, no dealer in the state will be able to accept a firearm from any source without having the authorization number or that dealer will be guilty of a misdemeanor. This will effect all sales. Sure a guy out of state could send in a gun without an authorization number, but once I receive it without an authorization number, I will be held accountable.

No Wes, I did not miss it. Read my 9th post in this thread where I directly address this:

(in ref. to receiving a firearm without a approval number) If that's the case and the California FFL receives the firearm, they're guilty of a misdemeanor. And what's the process for the out of state dealer to contest a denial to ship legal firearms here? It's stated that it may be required for both the receiving and sending FFLs log into this site... So there will be a new fee, there will be a possible requirement of stating the contents of the particular shipment, and possibly a new DROS entry field 'approval number' which would link a particular package or firearm to each purchaser... this is registration. I agree I'm pushing the boundaries of what I read, but it's all plausible...

Anyways, I've explained things in much further detail in my last email to you. Perhaps you'll better understand why I have come to the conclusions I have, and even though we may not agree on what this all means at the moment, maybe we can agree we both have full understanding of what the law states and implies, insofar as being able to see how the controlling regulatory language is implemented in it's final application.

On that note, Gene is absolutely right in that any further debate should be held off until we see the proposed regulations.

[adamsreeftank]

Anything that gives the DOJ the power to make new firearms regulations is a bad thing. I wonder if they will actually respond to the public comments this time.

[jemaddux]

Anything that gives the DOJ the power to make new firearms regulations is a bad thing. I wonder if they will actually respond to the public comments this time.



No matter what, if we all agree or disagree about NRA and so on, this is the true point of this all. This is just an all around bad thing and it is going to get worse. SOF wrote a very long artical a few years ago talking about a slippery slope and how piece by piece the gov would make it harder and harder for us to do business, this is just another piece of the slope going out from under us. Gun shops are going to make good money for a while but had better put that in the bank because that will be it. :mad:

[Serpentine]

tenpercentfirearms is absolutley right. This law will seriously restrict the inflow of firearms into CA. There will be fewer private sellers, dealers, custom shops, and distributors that will be willing to jump through California's Big Government hoops, calling government offices for 'OK's,' and basically a lot of bother for the small gains they may make. At best, there will be a 'Californnia handling surcharge' transferred down to the end purchaser. At worst, you will see more and more of the phrase "NO SALES TO CALIFORNIA."


The industry backs it because they want you to buy their NEW guns through their wholesalers, not what has already been sold. They are restricting their competition, the used gun market. NRA has to go with the industry on this. The end purchaser loses all around on this one.

[duenor]

Any new word on this law?
And, any word on the new procedure?