PDA

View Full Version : What's required of out-of-state dealers to sell to us?


Shanghai guy
06-08-2012, 9:57 AM
Found a long sought-after, rare make and model of SKS for sale on Gunbroker. 10-round magazine type, factory original, no modifications. I see similar ones here for sale and have bought similar ones from out of state with no issues.

The GB ad had no disclaimer of "no CA sales" so I did the buy now. Received e-mail from seller telling me where to send payment and FFL so I was thinking I'm gtg, just like any other sale. Paid for the bank check seller required and mailed it out, had my 01 dealer fax his FFL over. That was over a week ago.

This morning seller calls me and says "we can't go through with this sale, sorry. We are not set up to sell to CA. We will refund your money."

I informed seller these rifles are perfectly legal here and to my knowledge, all he has to do is submit an online form to CADOJ and it's done. Maybe I am wrong about that but that was my understanding, anyway.

Dealer says, again, "we are not set up to sell to CA."

I said, "I sold a rare parts kit to make this deal happen and never would have bid on your rifle if you had said 'no CA sales' in your ad. But you didn't."

Dealer says, "yeah, I looked at the ad and you're right, I didn't. But I usually do. Sorry."

So, my parts kit is sold and gone and this particular grail of mine, isn't, and won't be. I am SOL.

What do out-of-state dealers have to do to be "set up" to ship a CA-legal rifle here?

I am not sure if I should leave negative feedback on this seller or not. Should I, or is that low-class of me to do so?

Bummer of day so far... :(

Flintlock Tom
06-08-2012, 11:32 AM
It takes 5 minutes on the DoJ web page to set up an account and one minute to get an authorization number.
It has been my experience that on-line sellers, if they have decide to NOT sell to CA buyers, no amount of reasoning or logic is going to change their mind.
Try telling the seller how easy it is to GET set up to sell to CA and offer an additional 50 bucks if they would be willing to do it.
CFLC Explained (http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/cflcoverview)

If you do that, and it works, I will personally refund your $50.

Also, yes, you should leave negative feed-back if they are unwilling to complete a legal sale.

SilverTauron
06-08-2012, 12:00 PM
As a resident of South Dakota, ill explain why sellers don't bother to deal with you guys.

Good news-its not because we hate your choice of haircuts.

Bad news-its all about risk, primarily. The primary reason FFLs wont bother even researching the legalities is because there are plenty of other fish in the sea , customer wise. It may not seem like a big deal to you guys in California who are already used to oppressive gun regulations, but up here in America the concept of registering with a state agency just to get PERMISSION to sell a firearm -when the Federal Govt. already has vetted and reviewed a gun dealer from the jump-is philosophically offensive, and needless work when thousands of other gun buyers in Alabama, Arizona, Texas and other places will be more than happy to plunk down the cash without anyone needing to grovel to a state agency.

Another factor at work is risk for the FFL. Its no secret that California is very anti-2A in its laws and political leanings. No dealer wants to be in the gunsights of a crusading politician in California, NJ, Chicago, MA, etc looking for a reason to scapegoat a dealer for selling an "EVIL WEAPON", or to end up on the wrong end of a warrant for violating some inane gun law. Im sure many a seller has thought that the risk of catching a case in some far off oppressive land is far higher than the profit gained in a gun sale.

Sure, Id imagine a lot of you guys will say its all above board and I don't doubt your knowledge. But all it takes for an FFL's livelihood to be ruined is for some nitwit DOJ agent to get a bug up his butt, which is a lot to risk for $100 profit on a gunbroker auction. Shooters get jacked up in California far too often by misguided bureaucracy for following the law ,and its not something out of state FFLs will assume the risk for casually.

Flintlock Tom
06-08-2012, 1:39 PM
Now that's kind of funny.
To get a Federal Firearms License a dealer has to jump through innumerable hoops, subject himself to federal scrutiny, and worry about the ATF changing their minds about legal actions that they approved yesterday, and dis-approve today. Ala: Cavalry Arms.
And now, when the state of California asks you to check and make sure the guy you're sending the gun to is actually a licensed dealer, it's suddenly "Whoa, whoa! Now you've gone over the line!"
Yup, pretty comical.

Bruce
06-08-2012, 1:45 PM
As a resident of South Dakota, ill explain why sellers don't bother to deal with you guys.

Good news-its not because we hate your choice of haircuts.

Bad news-its all about risk, primarily. The primary reason FFLs wont bother even researching the legalities is because there are plenty of other fish in the sea , customer wise. It may not seem like a big deal to you guys in California who are already used to oppressive gun regulations, but up here in America the concept of registering with a state agency just to get PERMISSION to sell a firearm -when the Federal Govt. already has vetted and reviewed a gun dealer from the jump-is philosophically offensive, and needless work when thousands of other gun buyers in Alabama, Arizona, Texas and other places will be more than happy to plunk down the cash without anyone needing to grovel to a state agency.

Another factor at work is risk for the FFL. Its no secret that California is very anti-2A in its laws and political leanings. No dealer wants to be in the gunsights of a crusading politician in California, NJ, Chicago, MA, etc looking for a reason to scapegoat a dealer for selling an "EVIL WEAPON", or to end up on the wrong end of a warrant for violating some inane gun law. Im sure many a seller has thought that the risk of catching a case in some far off oppressive land is far higher than the profit gained in a gun sale.

Sure, Id imagine a lot of you guys will say its all above board and I don't doubt your knowledge. But all it takes for an FFL's livelihood to be ruined is for some nitwit DOJ agent to get a bug up his butt, which is a lot to risk for $100 profit on a gunbroker auction. Shooters get jacked up in California far too often by misguided bureaucracy for following the law ,and its not something out of state FFLs will assume the risk for casually.

What's required of out-of-state dealers to sell to us?

Some guts, apparently. :rolleyes:

dantodd
06-08-2012, 2:11 PM
As a resident of South Dakota, ill explain why sellers don't bother to deal with you guys.


And this is why I generally pay no attention to SilverTauron's postings.

Shanghai guy
06-08-2012, 2:43 PM
I will be sure to leave negative feedback. Thanks for the information, gentlemen.

littlejake
06-08-2012, 5:17 PM
Some sellers on GB are not FFLs. Look for the FFL shield. Then read whether they'll deal with CA's CFLC system. Some will; those that say they won't cannot be reasoned with. Even a C&R 50+ year old long gun that can ship directly to an FFL-3 holder.

We got slammed with that CFLC requirement July 1, 2008. When Portantino's long gun bill takes effect, will have to re-educate out of state FFLs again.

There are some good FFLs on GB.

There are unlicensed people selling on there; and they cannot get a CFLC approval to ship to a CA FFL. Although, at this time, they can ship a C&R 50+ year old long gun that can ship directly to an FFL-3 holder in CA if they are willing.

If, in the OPs situation, the seller is an FFL; and didn't say, "no sales to CA," -- yeah, he deserves negative feedback (IMHO).

bill_k_lopez
06-08-2012, 5:46 PM
As a resident of South Dakota, ill explain why sellers don't bother to deal with you guys.

Bad news-its all about risk, primarily.

The risk of what? My FFL won't accept an out of state transfer until the our of state FFL contacts him. Upon that contact he walks the out of state individual through the entire process (or arranges for a time that he can do that with them).

What risk is there when 1) the out of state FFL already has my money, including the shipping, and 2) has verified that he is indeed shipping to a legitimate FFL.

I think its all a bunch of BS....How many actual law suits have been filed by CA DOJ against out of state FFLs?

aklover_91
06-08-2012, 5:55 PM
-snip-

IIRC, non-licensees can still sell guns to californians, and don't need a CFLC number.

ETA:
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/cflcfaqs#2

I am not an FFL but I want to ship a firearm to a California FFL. Do I have to obtain a Firearms Shipment Approval number before shipping a firearm to California?

No. The requirement to obtain a Firearms Shipment Approval number only applies to holders of valid FFLs.

SilverTauron
06-08-2012, 7:24 PM
Now that's kind of funny.
To get a Federal Firearms License a dealer has to jump through innumerable hoops, subject himself to federal scrutiny, and worry about the ATF changing their minds about legal actions that they approved yesterday, and dis-approve today. Ala: Cavalry Arms.
And now, when the state of California asks you to check and make sure the guy you're sending the gun to is actually a licensed dealer, it's suddenly "Whoa, whoa! Now you've gone over the line!"
Yup, pretty comical.

The comical thought is that you guys are defending your own crooked gun laws.

Why does your state DOJ need to oversee a legal sale across state lines?I find it sad that you all are ready to condemn this FFL for not wanting to tackle the California restrictions, when you guys post daily in this very forum about abuses in your state government.

There are so many laws in your state lawyers and cops can't get their facts straight.

littlejake
06-08-2012, 8:23 PM
IIRC, non-licensees can still sell guns to californians, and don't need a CFLC number.

ETA:
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/cflcfaqs#2

I am not an FFL but I want to ship a firearm to a California FFL. Do I have to obtain a Firearms Shipment Approval number before shipping a firearm to California?

No. The requirement to obtain a Firearms Shipment Approval number only applies to holders of valid FFLs.

You are correct. Our in-state FFLs decline to accept a shipment from a non FFL.

littlejake
06-08-2012, 8:26 PM
The comical thought is that you guys are defending your own crooked gun laws.

Why does your state DOJ need to oversee a legal sale across state lines?I find it sad that you all are ready to condemn this FFL for not wanting to tackle the California restrictions, when you guys post daily in this very forum about abuses in your state government.

There are so many laws in your state lawyers and cops can't get their facts straight.

You make a valid point also. Unfortunately our only redress is through the courts. Our elected representatives just plain don't care. We have to fight them in court with our money; and they fight us using the peoples money.

microwaveguy
06-08-2012, 8:52 PM
There are dealers that will act as middle men to tranship.
Ship it to one of them and then they will ship to your dealer. It will cost a couple of extra dollars but you'll get your rifle.

GOEX FFF
06-08-2012, 10:22 PM
IMO, we should try and educate sellers how easy and FREE it is to sign up for the CFLC.


Originally Posted by SilverTauron
The comical thought is that you guys are defending your own crooked gun laws.
<snip>

Yeah, its another stupid step... but IMO, it's not defending the CFLC program if the main goal is educating sellers that they can sell legal items here.
No one likes it, but it's also what it is right now until we tackle it in the courts, and who knows how long that will be.

But surely you can agree that the reverse can be said too about the anti CA seller. By not selling perfectly legal items here, they're just contributing and promoting their own gun-control on CA firearm owners which the anti's LOVE, because it's no work for them by having the snake eats it's own tail. Gun-control from an anti is expected, but gun-control from your own kind is foolish. The key is educating out-of-state sellers to keep selling items here is the best option we have at this point in the game, and actually limits gun-control on us. If we don't, we lose on both fronts and one of them being friendly-fire from our own.

I forget the Calgunner who's mission it is to educate out-of-state sellers who are anti CA, but I too myself have changed the outlook of a few sellers that were anti CA, explaining to them, and showing them how easy it is to sign up for the Free CFLC program. Again, we're not defending the program, we're looking to keep the sellers selling here with what we have to work with. Some that I have had educated have seen the light, and have now posted in their ads that they're CA friendly. A couple guys stated that they thought it was a much less grueling process after they read the DOJ site. If we get more out-of state dealers to see that it's not as much as burden to validate their FFL as they think it is, others will hopefully start to see more "WE SELL TO CA" ads and follow suit. And that's not a bad thing.

Heck, even if I'm not buying from a seller, but I see they say they are CA friendly, I'll send them a message THANKING them for not alienating CA gun owners and I hope to be a future customer of theirs because of so. I have gotten quite a few interesting supporting comments back from them that we ALL need to stick together. One gentleman responded "Hell, you guys need Firearms as much as anyone, I'm HAPPY to sell to you guys. If it's legal there, go for it."

GOEX FFF
06-08-2012, 10:43 PM
I should also add, that 03 FFL holders are exempt from the CFLC. An out-of-state 01 FFL does NOT need to be enrolled in the CFLC to transfer/ship a C&R Long Gun to a Type 03.
So there is no excuse of "I refuse to get permission from your CA DOJ".

SilverTauron
06-09-2012, 4:49 AM
But surely you can agree that the reverse can be said too about the anti CA seller. By not selling perfectly legal items here, they're just contributing and promoting their own gun-control on CA firearm owners which the anti's LOVE, because it's no work for them by having the snake eats it's own tail. Gun-control from an anti is expected, but gun-control from your own kind is foolish. The key is educating out-of-state sellers to keep selling items here is the best option we have at this point in the game, and actually limits gun-control on us. If we don't, we lose on both fronts and one of them being friendly-fire from our own.


I disagree with this argument, and I duly hope that some reasoned understanding is possible on why I do.

Were it up to your political reps who, it must be conceded,were elected by your state peers, there would be a blanket ban on civil arms in California. Forget about rosters, AWB, and flowcharts;their goal is no guns period for anyone not on the state or Federal payroll.

In recognition of the fact that such a ban doesn't pass judicial scrutiny, those same politicians are forced to play a game with the law like teenagers on a date-how close to a desired total ban can they get without crossing the line into "infringement"? Thus we have the hodgepodge of laws in CA like the AWB, the Magazine laws, the Roster, and your laws regarding illegal and legal transfer of a firearm-all of which are meant to do in piecemeal what Britian's laws on firearms accomplish in one volume of statues.

With that point established, what an out of state FFL does in terms of a sale or not doesn't change the status quo. Your elected leaders have a warped worldview on the 2nd Amendment, and another SKS being shipped into the state won't change that. If anything, it gives the gun grabbers a superficial chance to ruin someone's livelihood for political hay. If a state senator loses his marbles over a 3 centimeter wide button on an AR15, I can only imagine what coronary the knowledge of the existence of Gunbroker.com will cause.

Between the Roster, 1 in 30, waiting periods, and the fact that gunmakers must bribe your state overlords to sell their wares in California, saying out of state FFLs contribute to your unfortunate political situation by not selling items to CA is a red herring. On that basis we can argue that Ruger is contributing to the status quo by paying a monthly note to the DOJ for keeping its roster legal items on the list:they're literally funding continued infringement in your rights by sending money to the DOJ, as is every other firm on the approved list. If Joe FFL is supporting the gun grabbers by not sending arms to CA, what of the companies that are playing the game to sell there?

SanPedroShooter
06-09-2012, 9:45 AM
I think ST and GOEX both make good points from different sides of the issue. And I suppose it may be logically impossible, but I think they are both right. It depends on what side of the transaction you are I suppose.

If you are an FFL in a free state you will have to decide if arming people in a state that would absolutely ban most small arms if they could is worth it. It may be paranoid and illogical, but there is always the thought of 'what if they come after me? Is it worth a few hundred bucks?

I appreciate the efforts of most FFLs that will send arms over the wire. The ones that wont seem to be difficulte to reason with.

wheels
06-09-2012, 11:11 AM
I think ST and GOEX both make good points from different sides of the issue. And I suppose it may be logically impossible, but I think they are both right. It depends on what side of the transaction you are I suppose.

If you are an FFL in a free state you will have to decide if arming people in a state that would absolutely ban most small arms if they could is worth it. It may be paranoid and illogical, but there is always the thought of 'what if they come after me? Is it worth a few hundred bucks?

I appreciate the efforts of most FFLs that will send arms over the wire. The ones that wont seem to be difficulte to reason with.

I agree they are both making good points, but if an out of state FFL ends up in the DOJ's sights a good lawyer to fight a bogus charge will probably run 10-50k to keep the out of state FFL out of jail. That's would take a lot of CA sales at a reasonable profit margin to justify the risk.

Imagine the out of state FFL who ships something completely legal into CA that gets used in a high profile shooting here - is the risk worth the reward? The FFL will be the scapegoat - period.

If the out of state dealer does not want to have to stay current with the federal laws, his state laws and then CA's laws (which are revised every year it seems) I can't blame them for that - they should be cautious where their livelihood is concerned.

The FFLS that are willing to deal with CA buyers should be thanked, it is an extra risk - just as the legislators in CA wanted.