PDA

View Full Version : 9/19/2013 CGF Files New Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit to Stop DOJ's DROS Delay Policy


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

taperxz
11-07-2013, 6:56 PM
so you don't think that a girl buys a handgun and then on pickup day, she walks back in with her thugged-out boyfriend who is all happy to get his new gun, that the FFL can't unwind the deal if he has concerns about who the true purchaser was?

Legally IDK. That's why I asked to some sort of quote from the law. The second question would be, how do you know they are a thug?

Back in the day they might be filled with tats. Today, every multi millionaire athlete could fit that description and due to notoriety, they decided to get her a gun. Just sayin. I do understand your concerns though. Tough predicament.

ke6guj
11-07-2013, 7:12 PM
Legally IDK. That's why I asked to some sort of quote from the law. The second question would be, how do you know they are a thug? walks like a duck...

Back in the day they might be filled with tats. Today, every multi millionaire athlete could fit that description and due to notoriety, they decided to get her a gun. Just sayin. I do understand your concerns though. Tough predicament.yes, I know that fashion norms have changed but if you dress like a thug, don't be surprised if people assume you are a thug.

and you might have missed in my hypothetical where I said "his" gun and that they were not married, so they can't even use the spousal Operation of Law option.

taperxz
11-07-2013, 7:24 PM
walks like a duck...

yes, I know that fashion norms have changed but if you dress like a thug, don't be surprised if people assume you are a thug.

and you might have missed in my hypothetical where I said "his" gun and that they were not married, so they can't even use the spousal Operation of Law option.

I've taken that approach too and lost money. During the dot com, many 20 something year olds used to walk into Ferrari dealerships with holes in their pants and were turned away! Lol.

Even the duck dynast guys got kicked out of a 5 star hotel when trying to check in. Lol

Tincon
11-07-2013, 7:33 PM
Not true. There are MANY examples of why this is not the case, but I doubt that you would get any of them. One such example is if you order a firearm, under your "logic" you own something which may not even exist.

That is irrelevant and does not prove your point at all. If something does not exist, obviously no one can hold title to it. But in the case of a DROS transfer, the "something" must exist, and have a serial number. If it doesn't someone has either made a very large mistake, or committed fraud.

While you have a money interest in the item, you do not own it.

Are you still talking about the thing that does not exist? No one has a "money interest" in that.

If you only put part of the money down and plan on paying the rest when you pick it up, do you own anything?

No, you have a contract to buy it, with consideration and partial payment. But again, this is not relevant, since it is a different situation and an inapt comparison.

That is funny!!! Go try that with a FFL and see how far you get. Any FFL with sense would refuse the transfer since it could be a straw purchase. The FFL might send it back, if you pay for the return shipping, might sell it on consignment or might offer to buy it from you.

See below re straw transfers. But think about what you are saying. If they can "buy it from you" or "sell it on consignment," why do you think that is? The answer of course it that it belongs to you.

it is only yours once the paperwork is done. Yes, there would be a money interest on the firearm if you died, but it is still not your property.

Please provide some legal citation for your assertion that a gun is unlike any other property in existence. When two parties (buyer and seller) form an agreement to transfer (sell) property, equitable title passes to the buyer. When the conditions on the agreement have been met (money paid), legal title passes to the buyer. The seller may still be in possession of the property. The courts will force the seller to turn over the property to the buyer if he can prove the above has occurred, unless the seller can provide (and prove) some legal reason why the transfer should not take place. Welcome to Property 101.

In the case of a CA PPT, if the buyer is denied, the firearm has to be returned to the seller or turned over to the police. Please explain how that fits with your view that you still own it.

See above (legal reason: the buyer is prohibited and the seller can prove it).

You can sue for money, but not the firearm. Try it. Ask about it.

Incorrect.

Under your view, a person who pays for a firearm and who is prohibited could be arrested since he would then illegal own a firearm. Ask about that as well.

WEll he could be arrested for trying to buy it in the first place, and lying on the 4473. But Please show the law that prohibits ownership rather than possession. If a person's will says their guns go to their (prohibited) child, is the child guilty of a crime instantly upon the death of the owner? No.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Go ask the BATF if you can force a FFL to do the transfer.

Why on earth would I ask the BATF about civil law?

Restocking is a scam? There are issues which you just don't understand.

Yes it's a scam to charge people 30% of the cost of a gun they had in stock because the DOJ issues a bogus "delay" and the FFL refuses to transfer.


so you don't think that a girl buys a handgun and then on pickup day, she walks back in with her thugged-out boyfriend who is all happy to get his new gun, that the FFL can't unwind the deal if he has concerns about who the true purchaser was?

If the FFL is sued he will need to be able to prove to a court by a preponderance of the evidence that he refused the transaction because he was unwilling to be a party to a crime. He may well be able to do this in the situation you describe: the third party has made an admission in the FFL's presence that the gun is actually being purchased by him. Note that if the only reason for the refusal is that, in the opinion of the FFL, the buyer or her friend looks "thugged-out," that sounds like great grounds for a lawsuit against the FFL for a number of reasons.

Tincon
11-07-2013, 7:35 PM
walks like a duck...

yes, I know that fashion norms have changed but if you dress like a thug, don't be surprised if people assume you are a thug.

and you might have missed in my hypothetical where I said "his" gun and that they were not married, so they can't even use the spousal Operation of Law option.

Exactly the basis of a really nice Unruh Civil Rights Act complaint, maybe even a federal civil rights violation (don't forget 2A is protected now).

Oh, and that's also not going to hold up in court as a valid reason to deny a transfer.

kemasa
11-08-2013, 10:01 AM
Kemasa, can you show the quotes in the law that backs up your claim?


Talk to the BATF and learn. Not everything is specifically stated in the law and the fact is that you can't force a FFL to do a transfer. Perhaps you need to back your claims up in the law.


No idea why you even bring up a straw purchase either??? Your denial for a sale needs to be acted on prior to the actual sale. Which is certainly your right as a business person.

No idea? Really? Did you bother to read the quoted text?

Here is is for you to try to read again:


If I buy a gun and the background check shows that I am a prohibited person, the gun is still mine. I just cannot possess it. If I put an ad up and find a buyer for it, he can pay me and go DROS it.


Any rational FFL would not do the transfer to a buyer that the denied buyer finds as there is too much of a chance that it is a straw purchase.

Please show me where a denial for a sales needs to be acted on prior to the actual sale. I did a transfer and after the paperwork was started, I realized that there was a problem and I cancelled it. Until the paperwork is done, the FFL can stop the transaction and has a responsibility to cancel it if it appears that something is wrong.

ke6guj
11-08-2013, 10:12 AM
I've taken that approach too and lost money. During the dot com, many 20 something year olds used to walk into Ferrari dealerships with holes in their pants and were turned away! Lol.

Even the duck dynast guys got kicked out of a 5 star hotel when trying to check in. Lol
I don't disagree with that.







If the FFL is sued he will need to be able to prove to a court by a preponderance of the evidence that he refused the transaction because he was unwilling to be a party to a crime. He may well be able to do this in the situation you describe: the third party has made an admission in the FFL's presence that the gun is actually being purchased by him. Note that if the only reason for the refusal is that, in the opinion of the FFL, the buyer or her friend looks "thugged-out," that sounds like great grounds for a lawsuit against the FFL for a number of reasons.

Exactly the basis of a really nice Unruh Civil Rights Act complaint, maybe even a federal civil rights violation (don't forget 2A is protected now).

Oh, and that's also not going to hold up in court as a valid reason to deny a transfer.

I specifically included "straw purchase indicators" in my hypothetical. If it was me behind the counter, I hope that I would ask some additional questions to feel out the situation and determine if it was truly a straw purchase or not.

my point was that it appeared that you were saying that an FFL could not cancel the delivery after the "sale" was made 10-days previous and I offered up an example on why he might be able to do exactly that, if justified.

taperxz
11-08-2013, 10:13 AM
Talk to the BATF and learn. Not everything is specifically stated in the law and the fact is that you can't force a FFL to do a transfer. Perhaps you need to back your claims up in the law.



No idea? Really? Did you bother to read the quoted text?

Here is is for you to try to read again:



Any rational FFL would not do the transfer to a buyer that the denied buyer finds as there is too much of a chance that it is a straw purchase.

Please show me where a denial for a sales needs to be acted on prior to the actual sale. I did a transfer and after the paperwork was started, I realized that there was a problem and I cancelled it. Until the paperwork is done, the FFL can stop the transaction and has a responsibility to cancel it if it appears that something is wrong.

It sounds to me that in regards to a civil right, you are either mistaken or DOJ is giving you to much lee way on decision making (only after taking money)

You are virtually following the reason 962 just lost in court. The concerns were a civil right and ffl's and LE having to much discretion in these circumstances.

Read what Michel posted on their win and what the judges said.

taperxz
11-08-2013, 10:21 AM
I don't disagree with that.










I specifically included "straw purchase indicators" in my hypothetical. If it was me behind the counter, I hope that I would ask some additional questions to feel out the situation and determine if it was truly a straw purchase or not.

my point was that it appeared that you were saying that an FFL could not cancel the delivery after the "sale" was made 10-days previous and I offered up an example on why he might be able to do exactly that, if justified.

Might? That's why Tincon is saying you could be violating ones civil right after the actual sale or taking of money. What if you are wrong and get sued for a civil rights violation? I'm no against you guys! I think the climate is changing though now that the 2A is a protected civil right.

I firmly believe you have the right to refuses service. Now, once you take the money, that could be problematic.

I might just have my wife buy a handgun and show up looking like a dirtbag to see what the FFL does. Neither of us are prohibited. We'll see what happens. It would be interesting

kemasa
11-08-2013, 10:25 AM
Your response leaves much to be desired, but perhaps it is because you really don't want a response.


That is irrelevant and does not prove your point at all. If something does not exist, obviously no one can hold title to it. But in the case of a DROS transfer, the "something" must exist, and have a serial number. If it doesn't someone has either made a very large mistake, or committed fraud.


You said that once you paid, you own it. If you pay for a special order, the firearm is not in the hands of the FFL. It might not exist yet or it might be at a distributor. If it is special order, it might not yet exist and so it would not have a serial number and NO FRAUD and NO MISTAKE would be involved.

Or are you now saying that it does not matter when you paid, just the second you START the DROS that you suddenly own the firearm?

Currently, in the case of long gun, the DROS can be started before the firearm arrives. If there are multiple of the same firearm being shipped, which one specifically do you own?

All this shows that you don't know what you are talking about.


Are you still talking about the thing that does not exist? No one has a "money interest" in that.


It may or may not exist. It may or may not be in the hands of the FFL. So if you paid, you have no money interest in the item? Try to be consistent.


No, you have a contract to buy it, with consideration and partial payment. But again, this is not relevant, since it is a different situation and an inapt comparison.


So if you paid a partial payment and submitted the DROS, you don't own the firearm? You seem to keep changing your view when pressed, so which is it? Do you own it when you pay, when you submit the DROS, or as I said, when the paperwork is completed?


See below re straw transfers. But think about what you are saying. If they can "buy it from you" or "sell it on consignment," why do you think that is? The answer of course it that it belongs to you.


No, it is because you have a money interest in it. If you buy a vehicle, but don't do the paperwork, you don't actually own it.


Please provide some legal citation for your assertion that a gun is unlike any other property in existence. When two parties (buyer and seller) form an agreement to transfer (sell) property, equitable title passes to the buyer. When the conditions on the agreement have been met (money paid), legal title passes to the buyer. The seller may still be in possession of the property. The courts will force the seller to turn over the property to the buyer if he can prove the above has occurred, unless the seller can provide (and prove) some legal reason why the transfer should not take place. Welcome to Property 101.


In case you have not noticed, there is a difference with firearms since there are restrictions (in some cases) on the transfer of a firearm. In free states the firearm can just be sold FTF, but it is different when you are doing the transfer through a FFL.

In this case, a court can not order the FFL to turn over the property as it would be in violation of Federal law to just turn it over.

Welcome to Reality 101, oh, I guess you have missed that.


See above (legal reason: the buyer is prohibited and the seller can prove it).


Who owns the firearm? If the firearm is owned when the buyer paid or if the firearm is owned once the DROS is submitted, then why would the firearm be returned to the PPT seller?

You have not explained how that fits with your view, which is not surprising.


Incorrect.


Actually, you are incorrect.


WEll he could be arrested for trying to buy it in the first place, and lying on the 4473. But Please show the law that prohibits ownership rather than possession. If a person's will says their guns go to their (prohibited) child, is the child guilty of a crime instantly upon the death of the owner? No.


The person can only be arrested if they start the paperwork. When/if they pay does not matter.

Your strawman in regards to the child is just plain silly and does not relate to this discussion.



Sorry, but you are wrong. Go ask the BATF if you can force a FFL to do the transfer.


Why on earth would I ask the BATF about civil law?


You do have a problem with reading, don't you?

You think that you can force a FFL to do the transfer, you can't.


Yes it's a scam to charge people 30% of the cost of a gun they had in stock because the DOJ issues a bogus "delay" and the FFL refuses to transfer.


The FFL can't transfer the firearm. With the new law, there is still an issue with the Federal law and the background check.

It is not the fault of the FFL and there are costs involved. If you don't like a restocking fee, then do business with a company that does not do that. Buy a firearm from a private party and see if you get 70% back. Buy it online and realize that the seller does not have to give you a penny back because YOU have a problem. Yeah, it might be bogus and be an issue with the CA DOJ, but that does not make it a problem for the FFL.


If the FFL is sued he will need to be able to prove to a court by a preponderance of the evidence that he refused the transaction because he was unwilling to be a party to a crime. He may well be able to do this in the situation you describe: the third party has made an admission in the FFL's presence that the gun is actually being purchased by him. Note that if the only reason for the refusal is that, in the opinion of the FFL, the buyer or her friend looks "thugged-out," that sounds like great grounds for a lawsuit against the FFL for a number of reasons.

Sorry, but you are wrong. You can't force the FFL to do the transfer. Ask the BATF.

You can sue for anything, but winning is another matter.

kemasa
11-08-2013, 10:28 AM
Exactly the basis of a really nice Unruh Civil Rights Act complaint, maybe even a federal civil rights violation (don't forget 2A is protected now).

Oh, and that's also not going to hold up in court as a valid reason to deny a transfer.

Freedom of speech is a protected Right, but that does not mean you can go to a person's house or business and start staying anything that you want and not get physically removed by the police.

The Right is also only protected with respect to the government, not other people. You can't force a business to do business with you.

kemasa
11-08-2013, 10:34 AM
I might just have my wife buy a handgun and show up looking like a dirtbag to see what the FFL does. Neither of us are prohibited. We'll see what happens. It would be interesting

Do you know what a straw purchase is? Do you know that neither party has to be prohibited in order for it to be illegal?

There is an exemption for a gift, but if you are paying for the firearm and you have another person go and purchase it, it is illegal even though no one is prohibited. It does not matter if the firearm is later transferred to you through a FFL. Even if it is a FFL that has a person buy a firearm from another FFL, it is illegal.

If your wife goes in and purchases a firearm, saying that it is for her and then you go in and it appears that the firearm is not for her, but for you, the FFL should cancel the transaction and there is nothing that you can do about it and you and your wife could face criminal charges, especially with your statement here that you might do it.

Armando de la Guerra
11-08-2013, 10:39 AM
This is a completely different take on the DROS/Delay process. My situation is this: I purchased a handgun from an out of state FFL, and had it shipped to my local FFL for DROS transfer. After a week, my local FFL received a DELAY from CA DOJ. It has now been over three months, and I haven't been able to convince CA DOJ I am not a prohibited person (and there is nothing in my Livescan that makes me a prohibited person) Yet the firearm that I paid for, in full, sits in the safe of my local FFL. Under the law, as I understand it, I am legally allowed to take possession of the firearm (and was after the 10 day period elapsed). DOJ is in violation of the law, but I have no recourse.

In the meantime I'm staying on good terms with my local FFL, offered to pay them for holding the gun in the meantime (they refused to take any more money). My plan is to cancel this DROS on 1/2/2014, and start another DROS. I am CA DOJ will follow AB500, effective 1/1/2014, which requires that they either Approve or Deny the DROS within 30 days.

taperxz
11-08-2013, 10:43 AM
Do you know what a straw purchase is? Do you know that neither party has to be prohibited in order for it to be illegal?

There is an exemption for a gift, but if you are paying for the firearm and you have another person go and purchase it, it is illegal even though no one is prohibited. It does not matter if the firearm is later transferred to you through a FFL. Even if it is a FFL that has a person buy a firearm from another FFL, it is illegal.

If your wife goes in and purchases a firearm, saying that it is for her and then you go in and it appears that the firearm is not for her, but for you, the FFL should cancel the transaction and there is nothing that you can do about it and you and your wife could face criminal charges, especially with your statement here that you might do it.


That's what I'm saying. It would not be a straw purchase. It would be my wife picking up her firearm. Then you deny her because I look like a dirt bag AFTER she paid for it and was cleared by DOJ.

She could sue you for that based on your incorrect assumptions and violating her right to keep and bear arms, a civil right.

I do know a little about contact law and how the state views retail sales.

PhillyGunner
11-08-2013, 11:05 AM
Just curious... if I walk in to a FFL, pay full price in cash for an in-stock firearm, complete the DROS and pass... on day 10.5 of the waiting period can I go to the FFL and say, "you know... I changed my mind... I'd really rather put that money on a boat... sorry"... can I 'unwind' the sale?

I'm pretty sure, that at that point, I am expected to complete the transaction that has been entered into. How would the reverse be any different?

I believe the word may, as used in AB 500, denotes permission for the dealer to now complete the last stage of the transaction they have willfully entered into without a legal restriction being placed on them by AB 500. I don't see where there is a new opportunity to 'make a decision' about concluding the transaction.

If the BATFE is requiring FFLs to 'unwind' a completed transaction to avoid accidentally facilitating a 'straw purchase', then it seems like a simple notification to the BATFE that 'circumstances suggest the sale was not as originally stipulated' should suffice... but that this is between the FFL and the BATFE.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado testified before Congress: "There's no way the Department of Justice could have prosecuted all 1.5 million people who were rejected over that 15 year period." (Defending the Milwaukee Chief of Police who stated:"It's a paper thing. I want to stop the 76,000 people who are buying guns illegally,"... "If you think we're going to do paperwork prosecutions, [you're] wrong.")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/27/should-the-government-go-after-gun-buyers-who-fail-background-checks/

So, now, the responsibility for enforcing Federal Firearms Law falls on the Salesman after the fact? Nice work around for the BATFE and U.S. DOJ. Guess maybe they should spend more time doing "paperwork prosecutions".

If there is no 'operation of law' that prevents me from taking possession of an otherwise legally purchased firearm, what allows the FFL to prevent it... other than fear that BATFE will pull their license for not doing their job for them?

taperxz
11-08-2013, 11:11 AM
Just curious... if I walk in to a FFL, pay full price in cash for an in-stock firearm, complete the DROS and pass... on day 10.5 of the waiting period can I go to the FFL and say, "you know... I changed my mind... I'd really rather put that money on a boat... sorry"... can I 'unwind' the sale?

I'm pretty sure, that at that point, I am expected to complete the transaction that has been entered into. How would the reverse be any different?

I believe the word may, as used in AB 500, denotes permission for the dealer to now complete the last stage of the transaction they have willfully entered into without a legal restriction being placed on them by AB 500. I don't see where there is a new opportunity to 'make a decision' about concluding the transaction.

If the BATFE is requiring FFLs to 'unwind' a completed transaction to avoid accidentally facilitating a 'straw purchase', then it seems like a simple notification to the BATFE that 'circumstances suggest the sale was not as originally stipulated' should suffice... but that this is between the FFL and the BATFE.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado testified before Congress: "There's no way the Department of Justice could have prosecuted all 1.5 million people who were rejected over that 15 year period." (Defending the Milwaukee Chief of Police who stated:"It's a paper thing. I want to stop the 76,000 people who are buying guns illegally,"... "If you think we're going to do paperwork prosecutions, [you're] wrong.")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/27/should-the-government-go-after-gun-buyers-who-fail-background-checks/

So, now, the responsibility for enforcing Federal Firearms Law falls on the Salesman after the fact? Nice work around for the BATFE and U.S. DOJ. Guess maybe they should spend more time doing "paperwork prosecutions".

If there is no 'operation of law' that prevents me from taking possession of an otherwise legally purchased firearm, what allows the FFL to prevent it... other than fear that BATFE will pull their license for not doing their job for them?

Yes you can choose to get your money back. Store owner has a right to a restocking fee if posted in this scenario. CA has consumer protection laws.

You would lose your DROS fee too.

PhillyGunner
11-08-2013, 11:31 AM
Yes you can choose to get your money back. Store owner has a right to a restocking fee if posted in this scenario. CA has consumer protection laws.

You would lose your DROS fee too.

Still seems like both a violation of both my Civil (2A) and Civil (contract law) rights if the FFL is making an inference where all legal requirements have been met.

It's a neat trick, though... more divide and conquer... if you can get the seller of the item you wish to control to choose to go beyond the law to control the enjoyment of the Right you wish to control.

Don't get me wrong... I fully support FFL's not making sales they feel are illegally intended in advance. But, once all hurdles have been hurdled, shouldn't it fall to the U.S. DOJ, or BATFE or at least the State's LEO to determine if a law has been broken?

I mean, how many John Smiths have been delayed in recent months because somewhere, once, one of them committed a felony? If the 30 days expire, does that mean they all must be a felon?

Kemasa: if in fact there are other laws that regulate the sale and receipt of firearms that we are missing, please point them out. Otherwise, it feels like the Feds are putting way too many expectations, requirements and allowances on your (FFLs) discretion and judgement.

kemasa
11-08-2013, 11:42 AM
That's what I'm saying. It would not be a straw purchase. It would be my wife picking up her firearm. Then you deny her because I look like a dirt bag AFTER she paid for it and was cleared by DOJ.


If you walk in with her and are just looking like a dirtbag, that is not much of an issue. If, on the other hand, you act like the firearm is actually for you, then it could be viewed as a possible straw purchase and the FFL may cancel the transaction.

Most likely you would lose in court as the FFL would say that it appear to perhaps be a straw purchase, so they cancelled the transaction.


She could sue you for that based on your incorrect assumptions and violating her right to keep and bear arms, a civil right.


And I could sue you for being stupid and odds are I would win.

It seems clear that your understanding of Rights are a bit off. The FFL does not have to sell to you, nor do a transfer to you. If you play games, the FFL can stop the transaction, especially if it appears that you have mental issues.

The Bill of Rights protects you against the government violating your rights, not a business. There are other laws which affect businesses, but not for firearms.


I do know a little about contact law and how the state views retail sales.

I agree, you need a little bit about it. For some reason you think that you can force the FFL to do the transfer, but you can't. You can sue if they cancel the transaction, but if the FFL say much of anything, most likely you will lose, but even if you win, you still can't force the FFL to turn over the firearm in violation of the law (state and federal).

kemasa
11-08-2013, 11:48 AM
...
Don't get me wrong... I fully support FFL's not making sales they feel are illegally intended in advance. But, once all hurdles have been hurdled, shouldn't it fall to the U.S. DOJ, or BATFE or at least the State's LEO to determine if a law has been broken?


In the case of a possible straw purchase, it is hard to prove, which is why the FFL can just cancel the transaction without the proof that you think should exist.


...
Kemasa: if in fact there are other laws that regulate the sale and receipt of firearms that we are missing, please point them out. Otherwise, it feels like the Feds are putting way too many expectations, requirements and allowances on your (FFLs) discretion and judgement.

Ask the BATF, the FFL is not required to do the transaction and can refuse for any reason. It is just the way it is. To force the FFL to do transactions would be more of a problem. If you don't like a FFL, go to another FFL. The FFLs should not refuse just to be nasty, unless you are playing games, but consider what happens if the person ends up killing people. Do you really think that the FFL wants to be on the news as the one who sold the killer a firearm? There might not be a crime and it might not be illegal to transfer the firearm, but the choice needs to be in the hands of the FFL.

BTW, the laws state what is illegal, not what is legal. Unless the law states that the FFL has to do something, then it is allowed.

taperxz
11-08-2013, 11:53 AM
If you walk in with her and are just looking like a dirtbag, that is not much of an issue. If, on the other hand, you act like the firearm is actually for you, then it could be viewed as a possible straw purchase and the FFL may cancel the transaction.

Most likely you would lose in court as the FFL would say that it appear to perhaps be a straw purchase, so they cancelled the transaction.



And I could sue you for being stupid and odds are I would win.

It seems clear that your understanding of Rights are a bit off. The FFL does not have to sell to you, nor do a transfer to you. If you play games, the FFL can stop the transaction, especially if it appears that you have mental issues.

The Bill of Rights protects you against the government violating your rights, not a business. There are other laws which affect businesses, but not for firearms.



I agree, you need a little bit about it. For some reason you think that you can force the FFL to do the transfer, but you can't. You can sue if they cancel the transaction, but if the FFL say much of anything, most likely you will lose, but even if you win, you still can't force the FFL to turn over the firearm in violation of the law (state and federal).

You need to do a little research. An FFL is an acting agent of the government. They act on behalf of CA DOJ and ATF.

Me checking my wife's firearm and taking interest in it is not a violation unless I am prohibited from ownership. You do realize that accusing someone of a crime and being wrong is also a crime don't you?

kemasa
11-08-2013, 12:16 PM
You need to do a little research. An FFL is an acting agent of the government. They act on behalf of CA DOJ and ATF.


That is funny, but I don't need to do any research as I live in reality, unlike you. The FFL is not an agent of the government just because they have a license. They also do not act on behalf of the CA DOJ.

The FFL is a business, not an agent.

Are you an agent of the CA DMV because you have a drivers license? Is a vet or doctor an agent of the government because they have a license from the government?


Me checking my wife's firearm and taking interest in it is not a violation unless I am prohibited from ownership. You do realize that accusing someone of a crime and being wrong is also a crime don't you?

Your just taking an interest is not a violation, unless it appears that the firearm is actually for you. The FFL does not have to have proof though.

Cancelling the transaction is not the same as accusing someone of a crime.

It seems like you want to say anything in order to try to "win".

Tincon
11-08-2013, 12:27 PM
Freedom of speech is a protected Right, but that does not mean you can go to a person's house or business and start staying anything that you want and not get physically removed by the police.

The Right is also only protected with respect to the government, not other people. You can't force a business to do business with you.

Totally wrong. You obviously don't know anything about the state or federal civil rights acts.

I'm going to help you out by providing citations to legal cases for this, since you don't seem willing to take my word.


The Unruh Civil Rights Act, section 51, provides in part: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Everett v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. App. 4th 388, 392, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 421 (2002)

...that Act has been interpreted as making all arbitrary discrimination illegal, on whatever basis. The listing of possible bases of discrimination has no legal effect, but is merely illustrative.

Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., 40 Cal. 3d 72, 87, 707 P.2d 212, 221 (1985)

The Unruh Act “expanded the reach of [the prior public accommodations statute] from common carriers and places of public accommodation and recreation, e.g., railroads, hotels, restaurants, theaters, and the like, to include ‘all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.’

Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., 40 Cal. 3d 72, 78, 707 P.2d 212, 215 (1985)


Do you understand now why your statement that:


The Right is also only protected with respect to the government, not other people. You can't force a business to do business with you.
is totally incorrect?

Businesses are not free to arbitrarily discriminate. Your civil rights can be violated by both the government and private persons. Hopefully you can take my word for the rest below, but if not, let me know what you think I'm lying about, and I'll go ahead and provide a cite proving you are wrong.



You said that once you paid, you own it. If you pay for a special order, the firearm is not in the hands of the FFL. It might not exist yet or it might be at a distributor. If it is special order, it might not yet exist and so it would not have a serial number and NO FRAUD and NO MISTAKE would be involved.

And your point is? Could such a firearm be DROSed?



Or are you now saying that it does not matter when you paid, just the second you START the DROS that you suddenly own the firearm?


You have equitable title to the firearm as soon as there is a legally binging agreement. You have legal title as soon as the conditions of the contract are complete. This includes payment, and may include delivery of the "special order" as above. When you start the DROS isn't a determining factor here at all.



Currently, in the case of long gun, the DROS can be started before the firearm arrives. If there are multiple of the same firearm being shipped, which one specifically do you own?


Again I think the SN is needed for DROS. But, in the unusual special case where there are multiple fungible goods that cannot be individually identified, then you cannot "own" any of them. The answer is, you take equitable title once the item can be identified (in this case when it arrives in the dealer's shop). The same would apply to a "special order" as you asked about above.

If the gun does not exist or cannot be identified, no one "owns" it. But that's irrelevant because at the time the dealer, post DROS, is refusing the transfer, both parties will know exactly which gun it is.


All this shows that you don't know what you are talking about.


Yeah? Which law school did you go to?



It may or may not exist. It may or may not be in the hands of the FFL. So if you paid, you have no money interest in the item? Try to be consistent.


Ridiculous. At the time the DROS has been completed, the firearm exists, the FFL has it, and the buyer has a "money interest". Actually he has title.



So if you paid a partial payment and submitted the DROS, you don't own the firearm?

You have equitable title, but not legal title. You might call that a "money interest".



Do you own it when you pay, when you submit the DROS, or as I said, when the paperwork is completed?
Assuming a simple buy/sell contract you have equitable title the you agree, and legal title when you pay. Of course, there is a law prohibiting the dealer from turning over the gun, which the buyer now owns, until after the DROS (and if there is a denial).





No, it is because you have a money interest in it. If you buy a vehicle, but don't do the paperwork, you don't actually own it.


I have no idea what you think this means.


In case you have not noticed, there is a difference with firearms since there are restrictions (in some cases) on the transfer of a firearm. In free states the firearm can just be sold FTF, but it is different when you are doing the transfer through a FFL.


Yes, and those laws prevent transfer of possession. They do not effect ownership. And in any case, if the laws have been satisfied, then they don't prevent anything. In other words, if the laws don't apply, they have no application. If there is nothing in the law that prevents a dealer from making a transfer, he cannot rely on the to avoid making the transfer. Not sure how I can be more clear than that.


In this case, a court can not order the FFL to turn over the property as it would be in violation of Federal law to just turn it over.


And if the guy buying the gun was zombie Osama bin Laden, that would probably be an issue as well. But equally inapplicable here. We are talking about a situation where the law has been complied with, or at least there no evidence to the contrary (which is the same thing).


Who owns the firearm? If the firearm is owned when the buyer paid or if the firearm is owned once the DROS is submitted, then why would the firearm be returned to the PPT seller?

The buyer still has title to the firearm. It is returned to the seller if the buyer is denied because the law prohibits the buyer from having possession. I don't know what part of that is confusing to you. If the seller was the FFL, the FFL would remain in possession. In all cases, once the conditions of the contract have bee met, the FFL is a trustee for the person who has title. Once the buyer is denied, that trustee relationship ends in the case of the PPT (seller becomes trustee), and continues in the case of a retail sale.


You can't force the FFL to do the transfer. Ask the BATF.

Define "transfer". If the FFL has my gun, and I've paid for it, and DROS has been completed and I'm not denied, then I certainly can force him to turn it over. Just like an other property. If you say there is some law to the contrary, then by all means, provide it.

curtisfong
11-08-2013, 12:38 PM
Define "transfer". If the FFL has my gun, and I've paid for it, and DROS has been completed and I'm not denied, then I certainly can force him to turn it over. Just like an other property. If you say there is some law to the contrary, then by all means, provide it.

More importantly, this absolves the FFL from any responsibility for enforcing laws or violating DOJ or BATF policy.

This is a *good* thing for FFLs, not a *bad* thing. I think kemasa is under the misapprehension that his having discretion is something desirable.

It is not. It would simply represent more liability on the part of the FFL. Discretion is a double edged sword.

Tincon
11-08-2013, 12:59 PM
More importantly, this absolves the FFL from any responsibility for enforcing laws or violating DOJ or BATF policy.

This is a *good* thing for FFLs, not a *bad* thing. I think kemasa is under the misapprehension that his having discretion is something desirable.

It is not. It would simply represent more liability on the part of the FFL. Discretion is a double edged sword.

I agree. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields FFLs from liability if they follow the law. There is no criminal liability here. So all the FFL has to do is release if there is no denial or evidence of a crime. Simple. The FFL should not be saying, "I don't like the cut of this guy's jib" and denying the sale. They also should not be denying based on the fact that a delay occurred, when those delays are total BS in the first place.

curtisfong
11-08-2013, 1:22 PM
The FFL should not be saying, "I don't like the cut of this guy's jib" and denying the sale. They also should not be denying based on the fact that a delay occurred, when those delays are total BS in the first place.

IMO the bigger picture problem is this: private business owners like the idea of having a lot of discretion, because it makes them feel like they are in control of things.

When their responsibilities overlap into government territory (as agents of the government, as you outlined earlier), they run into the OPPOSING principle in the public sector.

In the public sector, the power of discretion is something to be avoided at all costs (not sought after), because it leads to liability.

When you see a cop (or other government agent) posturing that they have a lot of discretion, they are either immature and clueless, or putting on an act (because even though deep down inside they know better, they want to intimidate).

kemasa
11-08-2013, 3:46 PM
Totally wrong. You obviously don't know anything about the state or federal civil rights acts.


Incorrect. You seem to think that all those apply to a FFL doing a transfer. Please provide one example of such a case.


I'm going to help you out by providing citations to legal cases for this, since you don't seem willing to take my word.


No, what you are trying to do is spewing out stuff and hope something sticks or I give up and ignore you.


Do you understand now why your statement that:

is totally incorrect?


I mentioned that there are some laws which apply to businesses, but show me where it applies to FFLs, other than a FFL discriminating against a person other than for specific reasons, unless you want to claim that being an idiot is a medical condition, or perhaps a disability. Being an idiot is not a protected class.


Businesses are not free to arbitrarily discriminate. Your civil rights can be violated by both the government and private persons. Hopefully you can take my word for the rest below, but if not, let me know what you think I'm lying about, and I'll go ahead and provide a cite proving you are wrong.


You are incorrectly trying to claim that while businesses can not discriminate that it also means that they can't refuse to do business with a person for reasons other than "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition".


And your point is? Could such a firearm be DROSed?


Yes, such a firearm could be DROS'd, although it is a bad idea because if anything happens to it in shipping then there could be a problem with the customer in terms of money. The DROS fee is not refundable.


You have equitable title to the firearm as soon as there is a legally binging agreement. You have legal title as soon as the conditions of the contract are complete.


And it is not complete until ALL of the paperwork is done. Without legal title, there is little that you can do except to sue for money.

Also, if the FFL feels that there is a problem, such as a straw purchase, then the transaction can be cancelled. There is no legally binding agreement which forces the FFL to do the transfer.



This includes payment, and may include delivery of the "special order" as above. When you start the DROS isn't a determining factor here at all.


You keep changing when you claim to own the firearm, why is that?


Again I think the SN is needed for DROS.


Perhaps you should think about it a bit more than since currently for a long gun there is no SN requirement. Starting in 2014 there is.


But, in the unusual special case where there are multiple fungible goods that cannot be individually identified, then you cannot "own" any of them.


Interesting. Then just because you paid and just because you started the DROS means that you can not own any of them. It can be determined just before the 4473 is completed.


The answer is, you take equitable title once the item can be identified (in this case when it arrives in the dealer's shop). The same would apply to a "special order" as you asked about above.


When it arrives in the dealer's shop? You said above that it was not until you could determine which one it was. Again another change.


If the gun does not exist or cannot be identified, no one "owns" it. But that's irrelevant because at the time the dealer, post DROS, is refusing the transfer, both parties will know exactly which gun it is.


Not always.


Yeah? Which law school did you go to?


So you are trying to claim that your not knowing what you are talking about depends on which law school I went to? Interesting. You can still be an idiot even after attending law school. In fact, sometimes it is worse because the idiot thinks that they know everything and thinks that they know more than others because of the magical powers of attending a law school.


Ridiculous. At the time the DROS has been completed, the firearm exists, the FFL has it, and the buyer has a "money interest". Actually he has title.


At the time the DROS has been completed, that means the firearm has been transferred. Until then, the buyer does not have title.


You have equitable title, but not legal title. You might call that a "money interest".


Which actually means very little in terms of a firearm.


Assuming a simple buy/sell contract you have equitable title the you agree, and legal title when you pay. Of course, there is a law prohibiting the dealer from turning over the gun, which the buyer now owns, until after the DROS (and if there is a denial).


The buyer does not own it until everything is complete. That is something which you don't seem to get.


I have no idea what you think this means.


I gather that you have no idea. Trying paying for a vehicle and then claim that you own it without doing the paperwork.


Yes, and those laws prevent transfer of possession. They do not effect ownership. And in any case, if the laws have been satisfied, then they don't prevent anything. In other words, if the laws don't apply, they have no application. If there is nothing in the law that prevents a dealer from making a transfer, he cannot rely on the to avoid making the transfer. Not sure how I can be more clear than that.


Provide case law on that claim with respect to firearms.

A FFL can stop a transaction, I am not sure of how I can be more clear on that. There are many reasons for that.


And if the guy buying the gun was zombie Osama bin Laden, that would probably be an issue as well. But equally inapplicable here. We are talking about a situation where the law has been complied with, or at least there no evidence to the contrary (which is the same thing).


Actually, in the case of a delay over 30 days, the Federal law has not been complied with. Also, as said, there are reasons that the FFL can decide to stop the transfer.


The buyer still has title to the firearm. It is returned to the seller if the buyer is denied because the law prohibits the buyer from having possession. I don't know what part of that is confusing to you. If the seller was the FFL, the FFL would remain in possession. In all cases, once the conditions of the contract have bee met, the FFL is a trustee for the person who has title. Once the buyer is denied, that trustee relationship ends in the case of the PPT (seller becomes trustee), and continues in the case of a retail sale.


So the buyer has title, but the seller gets the firearm back from the FFL?

Show me where it states that the FFL is just a trustee. Show me where it says that the person has "title" to the firearm before the transfer is completed.


Define "transfer". If the FFL has my gun, and I've paid for it, and DROS has been completed and I'm not denied, then I certainly can force him to turn it over. Just like an other property. If you say there is some law to the contrary, then by all means, provide it.

Yes, if the DROS and the 4473 has been completed, then it is your firearm. Until then, it is not. Look at the law regarding the transfer of a firearm. When do you think that the DROS is completed? Why do you ignore the Federal aspect of the transfer?

Tincon
11-08-2013, 4:05 PM
In fact, sometimes it is worse because the idiot thinks that they know everything and thinks that they know more than others because of the magical powers of attending a law school.


I think this says it all right here. You don't know what you are talking about, you have no basis for your assertions, and yet you insist you must be right.

Even after I show you the law and the cases that say the Act applies to "all business establishments of every kind whatsoever," you say "but show me where it applies to FFLs." :facepalm:

When I show you the law that says "that Act has been interpreted as making all arbitrary discrimination illegal, on whatever basis. The listing of possible bases of discrimination has no legal effect, but is merely illustrative," you reply "You are incorrectly trying to claim that while businesses can not discriminate that it also means that they can't refuse to do business with a person for reasons other than "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition."

Really? You are flat out contradicting what the courts have said, with no explanation or distinction. In other words you are wrong, and are now willfully remaining ignorant of the law when I deliver it to you, chapter and verse.

As such, there is no point in continuing this discussion further.

kemasa
11-08-2013, 4:37 PM
I think this says it all right here. You don't know what you are talking about, you have no basis for your assertions, and yet you insist you must be right.


Let's see, you said that you though the SN was submitted for all firearms, which is false, so that right there shows that you don't know what you are talking about.


Even after I show you the law and the cases that say the Act applies to "all business establishments of every kind whatsoever," you say "but show me where it applies to FFLs." :facepalm:


Moron, can't you read? A FFL can't discriminate based on the protected groups, but that does not mean that a FFL can't refuse to do business with an idiot. You seem to think that it means far more than it does.


When I show you the law that says "that Act has been interpreted as making all arbitrary discrimination illegal, on whatever basis. The listing of possible bases of discrimination has no legal effect, but is merely illustrative," you reply "You are incorrectly trying to claim that while businesses can not discriminate that it also means that they can't refuse to do business with a person for reasons other than "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition."


Why is it that you think that refusing to do a transfer is discrimination?


Really? You are flat out contradicting what the courts have said, with no explanation or distinction. In other words you are wrong, and are now willfully remaining ignorant of the law when I deliver it to you, chapter and verse.


it is clear that you can't understand simple concepts. I am not contradicting what the courts have said, but you seem to be trying to claim it means far more than it does. You also refuse to answer simple questions, most likely because you would have to admit that you are wrong.

Any FFL can decide that they don't want to do business with you. That is not illegal unless the reason was a protected class.


As such, there is no point in continuing this discussion further.

At least something that we both can agree on.

taperxz
11-08-2013, 4:41 PM
Let's see, you said that you though the SN was submitted for all firearms, which is false, so that right there shows that you don't know what you are talking about.



Moron, can't you read? A FFL can't discriminate based on the protected groups, but that does not mean that a FFL can't refuse to do business with an idiot. You seem to think that it means far more than it does.



Why is it that you think that refusing to do a transfer is discrimination?



it is clear that you can't understand simple concepts. I am not contradicting what the courts have said, but you seem to be trying to claim it means far more than it does. You also refuse to answer simple questions, most likely because you would have to admit that you are wrong.

Any FFL can decide that they don't want to do business with you. That is not illegal unless the reason was a protected class.



At least something that we both can agree on.

And some think I have an attitude.

You are simply wrong in your ascertations.

kemasa
11-08-2013, 4:45 PM
And some think I have an attitude.

You are simply wrong in your ascertations.

Yes, you have an attitude.

Answer the questions then. I am not wrong, but you seem to think that anything is discrimination.

Tincon
11-08-2013, 4:52 PM
Seems you are a bit defensive, calling people idiots and morons.

taperxz
11-08-2013, 4:52 PM
Yes, you have an attitude.

Answer the questions then. I am not wrong, but you seem to think that anything is discrimination.

What gives you the idea that I have an attitude?

I'm a CA business owner, I know contracts, and I know what my responsibilities are as a licensed professional.

Almost everything you're talking about could be discriminatory in court in this state. Especially when you are now in the business of providing others with a constitutional rights ability. Something you might want to think about now post Heller and McDonald. You don't want to be "that guy" do you?

Kestryll
11-08-2013, 5:02 PM
Yes, you have an attitude.

And so do you.

The name calling is going to end badly...

Eddy's Shooting Sports
11-11-2013, 10:40 AM
According to CA sales tax law, the tax is collected at the rate in force on the day the item is delivered. This would imply that ownership does not occur until the product is delivered and any money taken up until delivery is simply a deposit. The state doesn't refund fees and the buyer has committed to the purchase under whatever terms the FFL stated, which supports the validity of a restocking fee.

BATFE pretty much gives carte Blanche to FFL's to deny delivery for pretty much any reason, so what was all this troll feeding for?

I'd love to see one of these scenarios go to court. The judge would laugh them right out the courtroom.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Tincon
11-11-2013, 11:16 AM
According to CA sales tax law, the tax is collected at the rate in force on the day the item is delivered.


Sales/use tax is becomes payable when the item leaves inventory. This has nothing whatsoever to do with title transfer, I'm not really sure why you think they are related.


BATFE pretty much gives carte Blanche to FFL's to deny delivery for pretty much any reason, so what was all this troll feeding for?


I guess that means you are calling me a troll? BATF does not control state law on ownership of property. They also can't make up rules to prevent people from taking possession of their lawfully owned firearms.

Are you saying that if the DOJ issues a "delay" and then does not deny after 30 days, you are going to refuse to complete the transfer even though there is no denial and no law preventing you from completing it?

Eddy's Shooting Sports
11-11-2013, 1:00 PM
T Sales/use tax is becomes payable when the item leaves inventory. This has nothing whatsoever to do with title transfer, I'm not really sure why you think they are related.

Exactly. It leaves my inventory when I deliver it. In the mean time, it is simply on hold with a deposit, pending outcome of the DROS.



T I guess that means you are calling me a troll?

No, my comment was more akin to something like "beating a dead horse" the thread was going in circles and is way off topic.

T BATF does not control state law on ownership of property.

Doesn't matter since you don't "own" it yet.

T They also can't make up rules to prevent people from taking possession of their lawfully owned firearms.

Moot. You don't own it yet.

T Are you saying that if the DOJ issues a "delay" and then does not deny after 30 days, you are going to refuse to complete the transfer even though there is no denial and no law preventing you from completing it?

Did I say that? I don't think so. Please don't put words in my mouth.




Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Eddy's Shooting Sports
11-11-2013, 1:02 PM
.

That said, unless I specifically receive a "release after delay" notice from DOJ, that gun is going nowhere...




Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Armando de la Guerra
11-11-2013, 1:05 PM
OK, I have a question about ownership. I purchased a handgun from an out of state FFL and had it shipped to my local FFL. CA DOJ Delayed the DROS. This was 4 months ago. I own the firearm; not the local FFL.

So how would/do property ownership rights come into play?

Eddy's Shooting Sports
11-11-2013, 1:38 PM
If denied, I would say your only easy way out would be to negotiate a fee with the FFL to return it to the dealer you bought it from and hopefully negotiate a fair refund less restocking from them.

The FFL is not likely to want to sell it on consignment for fear of a straw purchaser coming in to DROS it.

Although it is yours, if you are denied, that means you already perjured yourself when you signed your 4473 and DROS. A sucky as it seems, you are at the mercy of the FFL fto ind a resolution. The easy way out for the FFL is to turn it over to LE and then you're really hosed.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Armando de la Guerra
11-11-2013, 1:48 PM
If denied, I would say your only easy way out would be to negotiate a fee with the FFL to return it to the dealer you bought it from and hopefully negotiate a fair refund less restocking from them.

The FFL is not likely to want to sell it on consignment for fear of a straw purchaser coming in to DROS it.

Although it is yours, if you are denied, that means you already perjured yourself when you signed your 4473 and DROS. A sucky as it seems, you are at the mercy of the FFL fto ind a resolution. The easy way out for the FFL is to turn it over to LE and then you're really hosed.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

I haven't been denied. I am on DELAY. Big diff there, Mr. FFL. The local FFL has no right to 'turn it over to local LE', so I don't know where that came from. The legal position is that CA DOJ is illegally preventing me from taking possession of my property. That's not my opinion; it is the opinion of 2 lawyers I've consulted.

FWIW, I've done a court records search, and have a certified copy of 'no record' from the court of jurisdiction. CA DOJ also has that record and still won't release my firearm. No reason. Because they can.

taperxz
11-11-2013, 2:02 PM
If denied, I would say your only easy way out would be to negotiate a fee with the FFL to return it to the dealer you bought it from and hopefully negotiate a fair refund less restocking from them.

The FFL is not likely to want to sell it on consignment for fear of a straw purchaser coming in to DROS it.

Although it is yours, if you are denied, that means you already perjured yourself when you signed your 4473 and DROS. A sucky as it seems, you are at the mercy of the FFL fto ind a resolution. The easy way out for the FFL is to turn it over to LE and then you're really hosed.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

An FFL is worried about a Straw purchase? Let me ask you this. In a situation where one is denied, I would have to assume that ANYONE the denied individual brought in to purchase the gun could be suspect.

Exactly what professional experience should an FFL have to determine this and how many FFL's have been convicted in a court of law for allowing a straw purchase when clearly an FFL isn't a psychiatrist or even a criminalist with the ability to make such an assumption?

The denied have a right to get their money back and many who try to buy do t even know they are prohibited. Misdemeanor DV from 30 years ago and effected by an illegal retro law.

Tincon
11-11-2013, 2:22 PM
Doesn't matter since you don't "own" it yet.

Moot. You don't own it yet.


Except that you do. It's getting a little bit tiresome having people with no legal basis for their position just dogmatically insisting that they know when title passes. The UCC clearly says when legal title for such goods passes:

if the goods are at the time of contracting already identified and no documents are to be delivered, title passes at the time and place of contracting.

UCC 2-401(3)(b)

No mystery here. For goods not subject to UCC, California law is (unsurprisingly) identical:

If the goods are at the time of contracting already identified and no documents of title are to be delivered, title passes at the time and place of contracting.

Cal. Com. Code § 2401

So let's not have any more of this nonsense about when title passes, based on sales tax law, BATF agent opinions, and other profundities.


Did I say that? I don't think so. Please don't put words in my mouth.


I'm expressly not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking you a question to clarify your position. As it stands now, there is no legal basis for the DOJ "delay" notices (see the CGF lawsuit in the subject, which as I have said is the best thing they have filed to date).

Now the law will change, and as such they will be able to issue such delays, for a maximum of 30 days. I have no idea if they will send FFLs a letter saying the time is up, but 30 days is the maximum length of a delay under the new law. My question is, after that 30 days are you going to release or not? Or are you are going to wait on some extra-legal post 30 day "release after delay letter" that may not even be part of DOJ policy, and certainly is not required by the law?

OK, I have a question about ownership. I purchased a handgun from an out of state FFL and had it shipped to my local FFL. CA DOJ Delayed the DROS. This was 4 months ago. I own the firearm; not the local FFL.

So how would/do property ownership rights come into play?

Well you own it. Once AB 500 comes into effect I think they will have to deny or the FFL must release it. But of course if you get an FFL like Eddy here who makes up his own rules, then you still have a problem.

stonefly-2
11-11-2013, 2:55 PM
OK, I have a question about ownership. I purchased a handgun from an out of state FFL and had it shipped to my local FFL. CA DOJ Delayed the DROS. This was 4 months ago. I own the firearm; not the local FFL.

So how would/do property ownership rights come into play?

armando, if eddy or my local ffl have your gun you won't get it at all unless it is "released" by the doj. this new 30 day rule means nothing but insulation for the doj against law suits. ffl's know that if they release after 30 days on delay they could end up in the jackpot.
one thought though, would a small claims court judge's order be all it takes at that point?

hang in there dude, i did 171 days on delay myself so i know it blows. oh, and sorry about the country , i'm sure you were expecting much more in the freedom dept. before you moved here. it didn't used to be like this.

rbetts
11-11-2013, 9:43 PM
Until the DOJ tells me to release the firearm, it will not be released. My master here is not the unfortunate customer. Nor is it the " legal elites" pontificating and blustering in this thread. It's the people that hold regulatory and confiscatory teeth near my small business owner FFL flesh. Ownership of the firearm is irrelevant if your DROS is denied. You've got 30 days to give it up to another party that won't give it to you. After that, LE gets it or it's going back. Of course if shipping isn't paid for, storage fees will accumulate and the firearm would have to be sold to cover the fees.

Now a delay just lengthens the time till you get it or the above goes into effect.

We FFLs get put in the middle on these delays. We don't like it just about as much as you don't. So once again, if the DOJ says release , it gets released. Otherwise no. Regardless of their ignoring the new law.

Eddy's Shooting Sports
11-12-2013, 10:36 AM
I haven't been denied. I am on DELAY. Big diff there, Mr. FFL. The local FFL has no right to 'turn it over to local LE', so I don't know where that came from. The legal position is that CA DOJ is illegally preventing me from taking possession of my property. That's not my opinion; it is the opinion of 2 lawyers I've consulted.

FWIW, I've done a court records search, and have a certified copy of 'no record' from the court of jurisdiction. CA DOJ also has that record and still won't release my firearm. No reason. Because they can.

Hence the reason I wrote "IF" denied. Read before lashing out.

You guys are attacking the wrong folks here. Your fight is with DOJ, not the FFL's. We just need to cover our arses so we can continue being in business....

I'm out this thread. Too much FFL bashing when all we want to do is help.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Armando de la Guerra
11-12-2013, 10:51 AM
got a call saying that a gun I should be able to pick up on sunday is delayed. Never had any run ins with the law other than a parking ticket and speeding ticket years ago. No detains or arrests and have bought about 13 guns this year no problem including picking one up the day before i started this dros. It is a ppt as well so I can't call DOJ until the hours between 2 and 4 to find out anything.

Do your Livescan, get a copy of your record, and you can probably figure out what DOJ's problem is. It MAY be an arrest without a disposition.

Armando de la Guerra
11-12-2013, 10:53 AM
Hence the reason I wrote "IF" denied. Read before lashing out.

You guys are attacking the wrong folks here. Your fight is with DOJ, not the FFL's. We just need to cover our arses so we can continue being in business....

I'm out this thread. Too much FFL bashing when all we want to do is help.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

"Lashing out"? "Attacking"? Really?

Wise decision to leave this thread. You're not doing yourself or your business any good here.

Tincon
11-12-2013, 12:05 PM
Ownership of the firearm is irrelevant if your DROS is denied.

Hence the reason I wrote "IF" denied.

No one here is talking about what happens during a denial. No one is suggesting that you turn over a gun to a person who was denied. Let's try to keep things straight.

So once again, if the DOJ says release , it gets released. Otherwise no. Regardless of their ignoring the new law.

The DOJ isn't the one ignoring the new law. The new law does not require the DOJ to take any affirmative action for the firearm to be lawfully released. The FLL who does not release 30 days after the delay, with no denial from the DOJ, is the one ignoring the law. And depriving a citizen of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which are his own legally owned property.

My master here is not the unfortunate customer. It's the people that hold regulatory and confiscatory teeth near my small business owner FFL flesh.


We just need to cover our arses so we can continue being in business....


The problem is, through your cowardice and ignorance of the law (or refusal to follow it) you are allowing the DOJ to accomplish what they could not do through the legal and regulatory process. Better men than you have risked death and imprisonment, and suffered those same costs, to protect our right to arms. And you would trade it away to protect your profits. And from what? You are not breaking any regulation or law by releasing 30 days after the delay. The law clearly states that you can do so. You are kowtowing to FUD, and FUD only. That's a sad and foolish game you are playing. And in the end, you will lose your precious profits as well.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety [or for profits] deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Eddy's Shooting Sports
11-13-2013, 6:54 AM
And now we put words in Ben's mouth...


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Tincon
11-13-2013, 7:22 AM
And now we put words in Ben's mouth...


What are you talking about?

Funtimes
11-13-2013, 10:05 AM
What are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the [entry] you put in that quote =p...

Tincon
11-13-2013, 10:26 AM
Oh I see. Well the [] means those are my words. Though I doubt Ben would have disagreed. Obviously Eddy's Shooting Sports does, and thinks profits trump civil liberties.

Eddy's Shooting Sports
11-13-2013, 10:49 AM
There you go, thinking for me again.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Tincon
11-13-2013, 10:59 AM
There you go, thinking for me again.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Nope, making an observation based on your own comments. Stop trying to play the victim.

bigpondonly
11-21-2013, 9:43 PM
After 61 days of delay....DOJ released my firearm today. They sincerely apologized for the mistake. I was so happy I immediately DROS'ed another one.

JDay
11-22-2013, 2:03 PM
DOJ apologized? I never heard from them when I was delayed.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

bigpondonly
11-22-2013, 2:21 PM
DOJ apologized? I never heard from them when I was delayed.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Now that I re-read it, the apology was to the FFL. "Please accept our apology for any inconvenience this may have caused."

MURRIETA45
11-22-2013, 2:47 PM
Hope you got a copy of the DOJ release letter from the FFL (just in case). I did.
Oh ya, CONGRATS!!

bigpondonly
11-23-2013, 12:54 PM
Hope you got a copy of the DOJ release letter from the FFL (just in case). I did.
Oh ya, CONGRATS!!
Roger that....multiple copies.

Greatturtle
11-27-2013, 11:49 AM
Well first time here but found this thread,

I purchased my first gun on Tuesday last week, a AR 15, I have never been arrested nor do I have any outstanding traffic tickets etc.

I got a call from the store I purchased the rifle from saying that my application has been "delayed"

I called the number for the DOJ he provided, and get the "if your delayed please be patient, but we are not taking calls at this time, go to our website to get the form to get your fingerprints done for a background check"

I plan on going to get this, but who do I contact once its done? they don't have a voice-mail or any type of contact info for delayed cases.

my pickup date isn't until the 2nd of December, is it possible that it was delayed due to the holiday?

any help or suggestions anyone could provide would be very helpful

Armando de la Guerra
11-29-2013, 12:26 PM
SUCCESS!!!!!!!

Delay lifted, picked up firearm. YES!!

HowardW56
11-29-2013, 12:28 PM
SUCCESS!!!!!!!

Delay lifted, picked up firearm. YES!!


Congrats, no go get another one!

Armando de la Guerra
11-29-2013, 12:29 PM
Congrats, no go get another one!

Got two more in jail right now. :D

fighting4theconstitution
11-29-2013, 2:23 PM
Frustrated, Frustrated, Frustrated......This is the second time a firearm purchase has been delayed. The first time was roughly a year ago when I was making a purchase from a calgunner. Then it was easy I was able to contact someone at the DOJ and clear up the issue and the firearm was released prior to when my 10 day wait came due.

This time my 10 day wait has come and gone and like Greatturtle said, you cant get ahold of anyone.

It is very frustrating especially when I just renewed my CCW...

Thanks for letting me vent...

Sakiri
11-29-2013, 3:13 PM
I almost hoped that they'd try delaying mine.

Almost.

The attitude I'd be given when they give up trying deep and hard to find something to delay me for would be amusing.

I've not been in trouble with the law. Ever.
Never been in jail outside a tour done in grade school.
Never been deemed mentally unfit or criminally insane.
No arrest record.
No driving infractions.

I'd be amused to see if they could pull something.

jeremiah12
11-29-2013, 6:50 PM
armando, if eddy or my local ffl have your gun you won't get it at all unless it is "released" by the doj. this new 30 day rule means nothing but insulation for the doj against law suits. ffl's know that if they release after 30 days on delay they could end up in the jackpot.
one thought though, would a small claims court judge's order be all it takes at that point?

I was browsing through this thread just to kill some time. I think a look at the wording of the new law that will take effect on 1/1/2014 will be helpful.

CA PC 28220 (f)(4) If the department is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, or the outcome of the mental health treatment or evaluation, or the purchaser’s eligibility to purchase a firearm, as described in paragraph (1), within 30 days of the dealer’s original submission of purchaser information to the department pursuant to this section, the department shall immediately notify the dealer and the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser, upon the dealer’s recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred.

I bolded the key word above, may.

It states the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser. It does not say has to or is required to or shall.

One cannot say for sure what the intent of the people drafting the bill was to use may rather than shall. Since they often have legal types do this it is a safe bet it was done intentionally.

The bill was sponsored by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D) San Francisco. From his web site (http://www.asmdc.org/members/a17/) As your representative, it is my goal to bring strong progressive values to the Capitol to improve the lives of all Californians, working together to get us through these challenging economic times.

His legislation success includes:
AB 500 – Firearms
This would tighten gun safety laws on safe storage to include households where someone is prohibited from owning a gun. Also allows additional time for Department of Justice background checks.

He wants to tell the good citizens of SF that he is giving the DOJ more time to do background checks. It sounds good. He probably knew a 30 day waiting period would be nearly impossible to get passed.

To the anti's this is a step in the right direction. To non-gunners, it is no big deal, it sounds reasonable. To the uninformed gunner or one who has a few firearms and plans on never buy again, it is so what, I have what I want, it does not affect me.

For the informed gunners, it is divisive. We read it quickly and read into it what we hope. No more indefinite delays, 30 days max and it is ours. The FFL has to hand it over.

Think from a legal standpoint. Remember the SF lawsuit over mag rebuilt kits? Just because it is legal does not mean you are protected from having to defend yourself from expensive lawsuits. If you are an FFL, this is your livelihood. The DOJ can and will make your life miserable. They will put you under a microscope.

The safest way to handle this is to not release until the DOJ sends the notice to release to the FFL. That then places the legal liability for mistakes onto the DOJ. If the FFL releases on day 30 under the may release clause, who knows where the ultimate legal liability will be placed if a screw up happens or the gun is found out later to be used in a crime. Courts have not decided on such cases. Who wants to be the first test case?

Again, our legislature passed intentionally poorly written legislation so they can pretend they are doing something important. It was signed into law by our Governor whom some suggested we thank for vetoing some of the bad gun bills while signing others. Now, we are left to fight amongst ourselves, gun buyers and FFLs, causing further division amongst us and making the antis happy.

Support your FFLs right to decide if it is worth the risk. If a few do, get ready to support them with cash when they are required to fight the legal battle.

mshill
11-29-2013, 7:58 PM
I was browsing through this thread just to kill some time. I think a look at the wording of the new law that will take effect on 1/1/2014 will be helpful.



I bolded the key word above, may.

It states the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser. It does not say has to or is required to or shall.

One cannot say for sure what the intent of the people drafting the bill was to use may rather than shall. Since they often have legal types do this it is a safe bet it was done intentionally.

The bill was sponsored by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D) San Francisco. From his web site (http://www.asmdc.org/members/a17/)

His legislation success includes:


He wants to tell the good citizens of SF that he is giving the DOJ more time to do background checks. It sounds good. He probably knew a 30 day waiting period would be nearly impossible to get passed.

To the anti's this is a step in the right direction. To non-gunners, it is no big deal, it sounds reasonable. To the uninformed gunner or one who has a few firearms and plans on never buy again, it is so what, I have what I want, it does not affect me.

For the informed gunners, it is divisive. We read it quickly and read into it what we hope. No more indefinite delays, 30 days max and it is ours. The FFL has to hand it over.

Think from a legal standpoint. Remember the SF lawsuit over mag rebuilt kits? Just because it is legal does not mean you are protected from having to defend yourself from expensive lawsuits. If you are an FFL, this is your livelihood. The DOJ can and will make your life miserable. They will put you under a microscope.

The safest way to handle this is to not release until the DOJ sends the notice to release to the FFL. That then places the legal liability for mistakes onto the DOJ. If the FFL releases on day 30 under the may release clause, who knows where the ultimate legal liability will be placed if a screw up happens or the gun is found out later to be used in a crime. Courts have not decided on such cases. Who wants to be the first test case?

Again, our legislature passed intentionally poorly written legislation so they can pretend they are doing something important. It was signed into law by our Governor whom some suggested we thank for vetoing some of the bad gun bills while signing others. Now, we are left to fight amongst ourselves, gun buyers and FFLs, causing further division amongst us and making the antis happy.

Support your FFLs right to decide if it is worth the risk. If a few do, get ready to support them with cash when they are required to fight the legal battle.

So if an FFL does release a firearm after 30 days what law have they broken? If the person turns out to be prohibited how can the FFL be held responsible if the law said they were allowed to release it?

I agree that the wording is stupid but I am not sure that it puts FFLs in jeopardy if they decide to release this firearm. I think this has been discussed in other threads but cannot find it.

stonefly-2
12-01-2013, 7:11 AM
I was browsing through this thread just to kill some time. I think a look at the wording of the new law that will take effect on 1/1/2014 will be helpful.



I bolded the key word above, may.

It states the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser. It does not say has to or is required to or shall.

One cannot say for sure what the intent of the people drafting the bill was to use may rather than shall. Since they often have legal types do this it is a safe bet it was done intentionally.

The bill was sponsored by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D) San Francisco. From his web site (http://www.asmdc.org/members/a17/)

His legislation success includes:


He wants to tell the good citizens of SF that he is giving the DOJ more time to do background checks. It sounds good. He probably knew a 30 day waiting period would be nearly impossible to get passed.

To the anti's this is a step in the right direction. To non-gunners, it is no big deal, it sounds reasonable. To the uninformed gunner or one who has a few firearms and plans on never buy again, it is so what, I have what I want, it does not affect me.

For the informed gunners, it is divisive. We read it quickly and read into it what we hope. No more indefinite delays, 30 days max and it is ours. The FFL has to hand it over.

Think from a legal standpoint. Remember the SF lawsuit over mag rebuilt kits? Just because it is legal does not mean you are protected from having to defend yourself from expensive lawsuits. If you are an FFL, this is your livelihood. The DOJ can and will make your life miserable. They will put you under a microscope.

The safest way to handle this is to not release until the DOJ sends the notice to release to the FFL. That then places the legal liability for mistakes onto the DOJ. If the FFL releases on day 30 under the may release clause, who knows where the ultimate legal liability will be placed if a screw up happens or the gun is found out later to be used in a crime. Courts have not decided on such cases. Who wants to be the first test case?

Again, our legislature passed intentionally poorly written legislation so they can pretend they are doing something important. It was signed into law by our Governor whom some suggested we thank for vetoing some of the bad gun bills while signing others. Now, we are left to fight amongst ourselves, gun buyers and FFLs, causing further division amongst us and making the antis happy.

Support your FFLs right to decide if it is worth the risk. If a few do, get ready to support them with cash when they are required to fight the legal battle.

sorry if i'm being dense this morning but i don't see anything new or that reflects on my comment in your post.
at the risk of being redundant;
1st) we realize that at the point the 30 days is up an ffl "may" release the weapon. you acknowledge they are saying they still will not, right?


2) my thought on small claims court is that an ffl should be happy to have to release due to the order of a judge as no liability on him after that. also this would give we the "delayed"a public airing of our diminished civil rights.

kemasa
12-01-2013, 8:26 AM
2) my thought on small claims court is that an ffl should be happy to have to release due to the order of a judge as no liability on him after that. also this would give we the "delayed"a public airing of our diminished civil rights.

A small claims court judge (often not even a real judge, but a commissioner) can not order a FFL to release the firearm. Instead, the just order money judgements. I am not sure that a Superior Court judge could order the FFL to do the transfer.

Also, by the time the small claim court case comes to trial it will be over 30 days, so it would not matter as all the paperwork would need to be done again.

jeremiah12
12-01-2013, 9:51 AM
sorry if i'm being dense this morning but i don't see anything new or that reflects on my comment in your post.
at the risk of being redundant;
1st) we realize that at the point the 30 days is up an ffl "may" release the weapon. you acknowledge they are saying they still will not, right?

2) my thought on small claims court is that an ffl should be happy to have to release due to the order of a judge as no liability on him after that. also this would give we the "delayed"a public airing of our diminished civil rights.

FFLs have to get permission from the State to do business in this state (right or wrong is a topic for another discussion). The state can suspend or revoke that license for a variety of reasons. Consider all the paperwork you have to fill out to purchase a firearm. FFLs have to deal with a whole lot more paperwork. If the state wishes to do an audit of the paperwork, they can and will find mistakes. It is impossible for it to be 100% correct 100% all the time. Humans are not perfect.

Consider for a moment that your livelihood depends upon permission from a state that is anti-gun. They have put other FFLs under the microscope for much less and you do not have unlimited funds and the state does. You may be right, but to prove it will cost a few years during which your business will be closed because the state will have pulled your license. You have to pay the attorneys and if you win the state will appeal so it will be a long costly fight.

Get back to the word may. Legally, it means has permission to do it but is not required to do it. I believe strongly no judge in this state will force a FFL to hand over a firearm after 30 days without the DOJ sending a notice to release the firearm.

If the FFL does release the firearm, no law has been broken, but the DOJ can make life miserable for the FFL and take action against the FFLs license to do business in this state. That is a costly, time consuming battle. The DOJ can ultimately be wrong but you still have to prove them wrong during the civil proceedings.

I went through this for a state license I have for my occupation. While everything was going on I could not work for 2 years. The allegations were shown to be false but I had no recourse against my accusers as they worked for a county agency and they were just doing their jobs.

There is a big difference between how things should be and how they actually work in the real world.

So, if this is a concern for you, ask your FFL what his policy is if you are delayed and it is not resolved by day 30? If you find one that will release, buy from him.

This is one of those poorly written laws that will eventually be sorted out by the courts. The DOJ could fix this whole mess if they would just on day 30 release the firearm. The problem lies with the DOJ and not with the FFL.

Eddy's Shooting Sports
12-01-2013, 10:20 AM
I'm not sure if it is relevant, but FFL's don't really have a state "license" per se. We have a COE, which anyone can obtain and we "listed" on the centralized list of firearms dealers, which is where the CFD number stems. Nothing is referred to as a license or permit though.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

stonefly-2
12-01-2013, 11:03 AM
you guys are preaching to the choir to some extent. i'm not suggesting we complicate ffl's lives, in fact if small claims were a viable solution it would be better if ffl's were "no show" at court anyway. i understand the position they are put in and have suspicions about why.
i just thought it might be the juristiction of small claims in a case where possession of someones else's property was in question. would small claims not for example be able to make a judgement if it were a case of a lawnmower whose legal ownership was in question?
could the ffl be asked to show good cause why the gun should not be released? doe's the standard of "reasonable" enter into this? would fear of vindictive retribution from state government come up?
if every delay over 30 ended up in small claims we could share the love by spreading the logjam around.

kemasa
12-01-2013, 11:49 AM
...
i just thought it might be the juristiction of small claims in a case where possession of someones else's property was in question. would small claims not for example be able to make a judgement if it were a case of a lawnmower whose legal ownership was in question?


Yes and no. You can claim it is your lawn mower, but unless the other person agrees, all you will get is money, not the lawn mower back. The judge can say that the person needs to return the lawn mower or pay you, but it the choice of the person as what to do and the judge can not force the person to return the lawn mower.

You could file a criminal complaint that the person stole your lawn mower, then perhaps you might get it back, but you won't get money.

It is not like on the court shows on TV where the small claims court "judge" orders things.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 2:19 PM
Yes and no. You can claim it is your lawn mower, but unless the other person agrees, all you will get is money, not the lawn mower back. The judge can say that the person needs to return the lawn mower or pay you, but it the choice of the person as what to do and the judge can not force the person to return the lawn mower.

You could file a criminal complaint that the person stole your lawn mower, then perhaps you might get it back, but you won't get money.

It is not like on the court shows on TV where the small claims court "judge" orders things.

Incorrect. I've posted about this before with reference to normal civil actions, and that's what I'd file to preserve my right of appeal, but a small claims court certainly can "order things." And no the other person does not "need to agree," only the court need agree.

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 116.210-116.270

(a) The small claims court has jurisdiction in the
following actions:
(1) Except as provided in subdivisions (c), (e), and (f), for
recovery of money, if the amount of the demand does not exceed five
thousand dollars ($5,000).
(2) Except as provided in subdivisions (c), (e), and (f), to
enforce payment of delinquent unsecured personal property taxes in an
amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), if the legality
of the tax is not contested by the defendant.
(3) To issue the writ of possession authorized by Sections 1861.5
and 1861.10 of the Civil Code if the amount of the demand does not
exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(4) To confirm, correct, or vacate a fee arbitration award not
exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) between an attorney and
client that is binding or has become binding, or to conduct a hearing
de novo between an attorney and client after nonbinding arbitration
of a fee dispute involving no more than five thousand dollars
($5,000) in controversy, pursuant to Article 13 (commencing with
Section 6200) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Business and
Professions Code.
(5) For an injunction or other equitable relief only when a
statute expressly authorizes a small claims court to award that
relief.
(b) In any action seeking relief authorized by paragraphs (1) to
(4), inclusive, of subdivision (a), the court may grant equitable
relief in the form of rescission, restitution, reformation, and
specific performance, in lieu of, or in addition to, money damages.
The court may issue a conditional judgment. The court shall retain
jurisdiction until full payment and performance of any judgment or
order.

stonefly-2
12-01-2013, 3:10 PM
well there you go.

"your honor, i ask that if there is no legal reason for this ffl dealer to retain my personal property it (or my full cost of the weapon and dros. fees) be released to me, 'the rightful owner". i have met my commitments in this contract.

there would be no legal reason for the court not to order the release of the weapon. if it works we cut the doj slow walk to 60 days instead of indefinate. (depending on court caseload calendar)
small claims court could also have some questions as to why we have to clog their court to avail ourselves of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
so can anyone say for certain that such a case would be disallowed in small claims court? i really don't know, i'm not a lawyer. if we can , i think we should try. this new law to do with "MAY" release is just to shift blame onto ffl's for the political shenanigans of those that are making their way onto collaborator lists across the state.

jeremiah12
12-01-2013, 3:37 PM
I'm not sure if it is relevant, but FFL's don't really have a state "license" per se. We have a COE, which anyone can obtain and we "listed" on the centralized list of firearms dealers, which is where the CFD number stems. Nothing is referred to as a license or permit though.


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

Thanks for the clarification. I was going by what I was told by the owner and her son (a former student of mine) at my LGS. The higher ups of our local PD and our local politicians are antis and have used everything in their powers to drive LGS out of business. My father had his FFL 01 and worked out of his house, and the local politicians kept changing the rules until finally it was impossible for anyone to do that. (This is Stockton).

My LGS has the DOJ and our PD all over them doing an audit after a DB walked in, asked to look at a gun, and then ran out with it. Yes, the employees were armed but their lives were not in danger so they could not draw and fire. On chased the DB down and caught him but he threw the gun in the back of a waiting car. The police were not able to find the gun. So they called the DOJ to do an audit of the paperwork and threatened to shut them down. I am not clear exactly how it was told to me, but it was along the lines of the state would take away their permit to sell firearms which in turn would cause them to loose their FFL. The state also audited their taxes and found they owed $100 in back taxes over the past 3 years.

This was the only FFL in the area that will allow me to use my FFL 03 and COE to purchase more than 1 handgun in 30 days. I brought a copy of the CA PC, they looked it up to confirm it, and then entered into the DROS system as 1 in 30 exempt citing the relevant PC. When the DOJ called and said it did not count for modern handguns, the store owner said read the PC and asked the person on the phone if she had a reading comprehension problem. It is in black and white, so what is the problem. They let the DROS go through and I got my 2 handguns out of jail after the 10 day wait.

I know the DOJ can make life difficult for FFLs that are following the easy to understand laws, why would they not do the same with poorly written laws that say may release rather than shall release.

I will back any FFL that does release after the 30 days are up by donating to their defense fund when the DOJ finds a victim it wants to make an example of. I trust our government enough, and have spent the last year researching the history of the DOJ and gun control, to fully expect they will take full advantage of this one word, may to make an FFLs life miserable and make every attempt to put more roadblocks to legal gun ownership.

Look at the people who have been buying guns for years and all of a sudden are delayed because of an arrest 30 years ago and the DOJ cannot find a disposition for that arrest. Geez, no disposition because the person was not charged and back then records were not computerized. In this country it should be innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the DOJ to hunt down the disposition of an arrest and they have 10 days to do it.

So, the short question, if you, as the FFL holder, loose your COE, what happens to your FFL 01 and ability to sell firearms in this state?

kemasa
12-01-2013, 3:52 PM
A CA FFL has to be on the centralized list (CFD), so if the FFL gets dropped from that or loses their COE, then they are out of business since without all of the required licenses/permits the FFL can not do business. The same would be the case for the resale permit, local business license, etc.

jeremiah12
12-01-2013, 4:15 PM
Incorrect. I've posted about this before with reference to normal civil actions, and that's what I'd file to preserve my right of appeal, but a small claims court certainly can "order things." And no the other person does not "need to agree," only the court need agree.

The two times I have been to small claims over property the judgement was return of property or a dollar amount the property was determined to be valued at. The commission added this was in case the property disappeared or somehow becomes damaged between now and the time it is returned.

Given that, I am sure it is different in each jurisdiction.

I still think the word may can easily be interpreted as is allowed to but does not have to and most legal types, judges and commissioners, would accept that the DOJ has not sent the okay to release it and still lists it as delayed. I am protecting myself from legal liability as I am not required to release it under the PC. It states may release not shall release.

This will take case law to set straight unless the DOJ comes out and states or just sets up their system so that on day 30 all holds automatically switch to release.

Who wants to be the one to spend the time and money to test this?

I am sure there are some FFLs that will release on day 30. So, if this is a concern for you, ask before you buy. It is the same I do when I know I will be doing a DROS on more than 1 handgun in 30 days. I ask first. If the FFL will not accept my FFL 03 and COE to do it, I go somewhere else rather than argue over how legal it is. I have copies of the PC to show it is legal, but it is still their business and their choice.

Just thinking about the small claims court route again and I realized an FFL could just end the headache once served with papers by refunding the money. That would end the claim. The FFL could make it part of their written policy what happens if it still is on hold after 30 days and it is just another paper to sign as part of the contract to purchase the gun (I am not an attorney and I know it would have to meet whatever legal requirements are in place).

Someone could try small claims but with the severe budget cuts, most places it can take a long time for the case to get heard. In my county, we lost our small claims court for over a year. It was just funded again but at this point the wait is 1 year for a court date. To save money though, you have to go through mandatory mediation before you can get a court date, and that can take up to 6 months alone.

Someone living in a county with a functioning small claims court system might have better luck. It does not hurt to try. I do not think it will work. This is something that needs to be challenged at the state level.

kemasa
12-01-2013, 4:24 PM
There are issues with regards to the background check under Federal law within the time limits, so unless the FFL knows that was done, the FFL can not release it and a court is not going order a FFL to violate the law.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 4:31 PM
I still think the word may can easily be interpreted as is allowed to but does not have to and most legal types, judges and commissioners, would accept that the DOJ has not sent the okay to release it and still lists it as delayed. I am protecting myself from legal liability as I am not required to release it under the PC. It states may release not shall release.

It says "may" because if it said "shall" that section of the penal code would be a new crime, which has several procedure implications in the legislature, among other issues(mostly related to funding). Since it only says may, there is no new crime. However, it does make it clear that the law does not require dealers to withhold such property after 30 days, removing any legal cover they might have had. And, of course there are already other laws dealing with unlawfully holding onto property that doesn't belong to you. There is no new case law needed here, if you have something that isn't yours, and no law prevents you from giving it to its rightful owner, you turn it over or you get sued. End of story.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 4:38 PM
There are issues with regards to the background check under Federal law within the time limits, so unless the FFL knows that was done, the FFL can not release it and a court is not going order a FFL to violate the law.

In other words, the FFL's defense is going to be, I have no evidence of when the NICS check was actually done, and it may have been more than 30 days ago, so I better keep this person's property just to be safe?

kemasa
12-01-2013, 4:42 PM
The background check has to be redone after 30 days. Like it or not, it is the law. Normally, the CA DOJ re-does the check before saying that the firearm can be released. If the FFL does not get a release letter and/or know that the check was done withing the time period, there is no choice. The FFL has to follow both CA and Federal law, not just what you want.

RobG
12-01-2013, 4:53 PM
...the department shall immediately notify the dealer and the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser...

To my non legal self, I read it as they can go ahead and finish the transfer. I do not read it as the dealer has a choice as to whether he wants to or not. The dealer is being told that they can give the buyer the firearm. How would the dealer be held responsible for anything after that? 30 days is up, you may now give him the gun. Seems pretty clear.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 4:57 PM
The background check has to be redone after 30 days. Like it or not, it is the law. Normally, the CA DOJ re-does the check before saying that the firearm can be released. If the FFL does not get a release letter and/or know that the check was done withing the time period, there is no choice. The FFL has to follow both CA and Federal law, not just what you want.

What is the basis for your assertion that the buyer has the burden to prove when the NICS check was submitted? IF you could prove that the NICS check was more than 30 days old, you might have a valid argument. But if you have no evidence that it is more than 30 days old, you can't prove a thing, and all you are offering is conjecture. A defendant must prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence. "It could have happened that way" is not going to be sufficient.

jeremiah12
12-01-2013, 5:12 PM
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/basic_info.shtml#what

This is a good read about how small claims court works in CA. Note, if you lose, you cannot appeal. By filing you case in small claims court you lose the right of appeal. The defendant on the other hand can appeal and have the case heard before another judge. In my county, it would be a superior court judge. That ruling is final and cannot be appealed. So really, this is not the place to take a dispute when the law states may rather than shall. You are stuck with a crap shoot and how the commissioner or judge is feeling that day. Get an anti hearing the case and you could be screwed.

Small claims courts can order a defendant to do something, as long as a claim for money is also part of the lawsuit. If you are suing to get back the lawn mower you loaned to a neighbor, for instance, the court can order the return of the mower, or payment for the mower if it is not returned.

If your goal is to pick up the gun, this seems to rule that out. You will get an order of either the gun or the money.

As for DROS fees, those are paid to the state, they are just collected by the FFL, so I doubt a small claims court would order the FFL to return that fee if the DOJ still has the buyer listed as a hold. Again, it is worth a try but I would not expect it. All the judge can say is no and he may say yes.

You also need to consider whether the defendant is legally responsible for the claim. Is the law on your side? If there is a law that applies to your case, the small claims judge must follow that law, interpreting it in a spirit of reasonableness and fairness to both parties. If the law isn't on your side, but you feel that justice is, you may get a more favorable result through voluntary mediation.

This is where it can get sticky. Interpreting in in a spirit of reasonableness and fairness to both parties. This is where the word may becomes such a problem. An FFL could reasonably argue that it would not be fair nor reasonable to put my business at risk until the DOJ releases the hold on the gun in question. The DOJ has not clarified what the legal risk is to me if I release it and then later they determine the person is prohibited. Case law has not been set and the DOJ has not published any rules on how this is to be interpreted.

Out of reasonableness the judge could then offer you, the plaintiff a choice, wait until the DOJ clears up their mess and either denies or releases the gun or a judgement for what you paid for the firearm minus the restocking fees. The places I have purchased from have a policy of you are out the restocking fees if denied.

Read the information at the link above you will see that the small claims process is mostly to find a middle ground and rarely will one side get all that they want. It is not the place to raise a 2A issue, that is for the regular court system.

Again, their might be some FFLs that would welcome this approach and may not put up a defense or not show so the plaintiff wins by default. They might feel comfortable that a small claims court ruling is enough legal protection. If it were me, I would not. I have had enough experience with the state and have watched others that I know who have dealt with the state to know that when the state wants to screw you over they will.

My aunt recently retired as an attorney working for the State of CA and she never lost a case. Her honest opinion as to why when I asked was the state has deeper pockets than any corporation or individual and she was lucky enough to select the right cases to litigate. After you get a reputation, some will just settle to avoid the hassle and she was glad because some of her cases were not that strong. She had to file suit because of political pressure from above. To help get settlements she would call friends in other agencies to see what other audits and reviews could be done.

Unfortunately, she is an anti, as was her father. Somehow though, my mother did not grow up to be an anti.

kemasa
12-01-2013, 5:19 PM
What is the basis for your assertion that the buyer has the burden to prove when the NICS check was submitted?


Huh? I never said nor asserted that the buyer has the burden of proof, just that the FFL can not release the firearm if the background check was not done. Also, it is not a NICS check in CA.


IF you could prove that the NICS check was more than 30 days old, you might have a valid argument. But if you have no evidence that it is more than 30 days old, you can't prove a thing, and all you are offering is conjecture. A defendant must prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence. "It could have happened that way" is not going to be sufficient.

It has to be shown that the background check was done within 30 days, not the other way around. The FFL can't just assume that it was done.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 5:27 PM
Huh? I never said nor asserted that the buyer has the burden of proof, just that the FFL can not release the firearm if the background check was not done.

And my point was that if the FFL is sued for delivery of the firearm, they are going to have the burden of proving federal law prevents them from turning it over, if that it their defense.

Also, it is not a NICS check in CA.

Actually, it is. The NICS check just isn't submitted by the FFL, the CADOJ submits it when the FFL submits the DROS.

It has to be shown that the background check was done within 30 days, not the other way around. The FFL can't just assume that it was done.

You seem confused about the law here. What law or regulation exactly do you think prohibits the FFL from turning over the gun after the 30 day maximum delay period?

kemasa
12-01-2013, 5:38 PM
How is the FFL supposed to prove that required background check wasn't done if it wasn't done? If the FFL has not been provided proof from the CA DOJ to release the firearm, the FFL can not release the firearm.

https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/041913-open-letter-ca.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

I think you need to check out the Federal law, rather than assuming it does not exist.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 5:45 PM
How is the FFL supposed to prove that required background check wasn't done if it wasn't done? If the FFL has not been provided proof from the CA DOJ to release the firearm, the FFL can not release the firearm.


How does an FFL ever know if the required NICS check has been done? The CADOJ is supposed to do it, by law, and thus the law assumes it has been done. The FFL will need to affirmatively prove otherwise to rely on this defense.

CIVIL CODE SECTION 3529. That which ought to have been done is to be regarded as done....


I think you need to check out the Federal law, rather than assuming it does not exist.

I'm not "assuming" anything does not exist, but you still have not cited any actual law/CFR.

jeremiah12
12-01-2013, 6:19 PM
...the department shall immediately notify the dealer and the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser...

Current law, as outlined in CA PC 28220 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/28220.html) I believe clearly allows the FFL to deliver the firearm after the end of the 10 day waiting period. Many of the subsections end with:

[QUOTE]the dealer shall withhold delivery until the conclusion of the waiting period described in Sections 26815 and 27540.

Why are firearms not being released after the 10-day waiting period? Because the DOJ is illegally placing them on hold past the 10-day waiting period. IIRC, CGF is part of a suit against the state over this very issue.

The FFLs have chosen to not release them until being notified by the DOJ they can release the firearm. I am assuming with this is the state performed the NICS within the legal time frame as required by federal law since it is my understanding the DOJ runs its own background check and then also submits the NICS check.

Really, what has changed. Nothing. The first step is the department shall immediately notify the dealer. What happens if the department does not immediately notify the dealer. That is the part that is being overlooked in all of this. How is the dealer to know he has been notified by the department? I have no idea since I am not an FFL. I will go ask the FFL I know tomorrow.

If the department does not update the status and leaves it at delayed, what is the dealer supposed to do? The department did not do step 1, notified the dealer. All of the discussion about what the dealer should do is moot until after being notified because it all depends on how the dealer is notified.

If the departments sends the notification by giving the updated status to release, then we are arguing over nothing. If the department gives the updated status in such a way to make it clear that it has been 30 days and they still have not cleared things up on their end, so it is now up to the FFL, then we are in the typical fuzzy legal situation normal for CA. If the DOJ just ignores its mandate to notify the FFL, then we get what we have today, indefinite delays. The DOJ will claim they cannot keep up with the workload and needs more money. It will take another lawsuit and several more years to force the state to follow its own laws. Then they will just change the law to increase the time they have to complete the check.

Ultimately, we are stuck in a waiting pattern to see how it will play out.

Personally, if the state cannot do it in 10-days, that is their problem, release it. This is more of guilty until proven innocent. It also allows the state to enforce a 30-day waiting period on all of us if it wanted to.

As much as I hate jumping through hoops to exercise a fundamental constitutional right, I could stomach as a compromise with a guarantee that this would be the end, a provision that those who obtain a COE only need to do the NICS at the dealer and once that cleared take home the gun that day with no waiting period. If the worry is what one will do in the heat of the moment, then a 10-day cooling off period for the 1st purchase. After that, there is no reasonable argument for a cooling off period. Geez, they have the APPS program to disarm us if we later become prohibited.

So, good luck in filing a claim against a dealer to claim your firearm after 30 days when the DOJ has not notified the dealer to release the firearm. Throw in the dealer not having proof that the NICS has been done and passed (as evidenced by a release from the DOJ) no judge will force a dealer to violate federal law. At most the order will go to the DOJ to do the NICS and then pending its outcome release the weapon. In order to do that, you will have to file suit against the DOJ.

jeremiah12
12-01-2013, 6:39 PM
How does an FFL ever know if the required NICS check has been done? The CADOJ is supposed to do it, by law, and thus the law assumes it has been done. The FFL will need to affirmatively prove otherwise to rely on this defense.


Tincon, I will take the bait since I have nothing else to do tonight and I love mental challenges.

This is the quote from the ATF letter to CA FFLs Kemasa posted above:

In instances where CA DOJ issues a “Delayed” notice to a California FFL, the FFL must place the sale of the firearm on a temporary hold and wait for the final determination from CA DOJ. CA DOJ will research the prospective firearm purchaser’s criminal history records. If the result of the research is that person is eligible to receive a firearm, then CA DOJ will initiate a new background check. The results of that background check may be relied upon by the FFL for 30 days after the new background check results in a “Release After Delay” notice response from CA DOJ; there is no need for the transferee or FFL to complete a new Form 4473. Because CA DOJ provided the FFL with a transaction number for the original DROS, the FFL must use the original ATF Form 4473 that was completed with that transaction number regardless of the length of time CA DOJ used to research the criminal history record. The FFL must document the information in items 21a-d as follows:

The ATF states that the CA DOJ "release after delay" comes after a new background check that satisfies the ATF and federal law. Without that notice from the CA DOJ, the FFL has no legal assurance from the Feds that the federal requirements have been met. So that puts the FFL 01 at risk. All the more reason to wait for a "release after delay" or we can put our collective effort to work with the Feds to fix this mess by letting the FFLs do the NICS checks in there stores rather than relying on the state.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 7:09 PM
Tincon, I will take the bait since I have nothing else to do tonight and I love mental challenges.

This is the quote from the ATF letter to CA FFLs Kemasa posted above:



The ATF states that the CA DOJ "release after delay" comes after a new background check that satisfies the ATF and federal law. Without that notice from the CA DOJ, the FFL has no legal assurance from the Feds that the federal requirements have been met. So that puts the FFL 01 at risk. All the more reason to wait for a "release after delay" or we can put our collective effort to work with the Feds to fix this mess by letting the FFLs do the NICS checks in there stores rather than relying on the state.

Still waiting on the applicable statute.

jeremiah12
12-01-2013, 9:07 PM
Still waiting on the applicable statute.

I am not going to search for it. I have a feeling that if I found it, you would not be happy and would find something else to complain about. It would be nice if our legal system ran just based upon the law as it was written in the legal statutes. But in the real world, it does not. There is also case law and rules and guidelines written by various agencies at how laws are to be interpreted. And this is why the legal eagles get paid so much and judges will never be out of a job.

As someone who needs a state license for my job, I know this all to well. There are still statutes on the book that have been ruled unconstitutional but they remain. Nobody follows them because they are meaningless. Their are others that have been interpreted to mean things either by courts or state agencies that most rational people would question how could it ever be interpreted to mean that. But it stands until someone with deep pockets and lots of time and a willingness to be destroyed by the state no matter if you win or loose is willing to come forward to challenge it.

I could give you pages of examples from my profession but it would be an exercise in futility. Ultimately, I have done enough research on this topic to satisfy myself. My original opinion has changed a little. Having an attorney in the family and having dealt with attorneys before on some other legal matters, I see a law written by anti's that appears to end the DOJs unending delays but in reality does nothing. Right now if the DOJ cannot determine if a person is prohibited, they are supposed to release the firearm after 10 days. They do not. They new law states the DOJ is supposed to notify the dealer, then the dealer may release the weapon. When does the state of CA follow its own laws? If the DOJ does not notify the dealer, we are back to where we are at right now. Indefinite delays. So what has changed? Nothing.

IIRC, you no longer live in this state. In my job, I deal with the state ignoring its own laws every day. There are times a court will order the state to do something and the state ignores that order and nothing happens. This is reality. So excuse me if I have the attitude of I will believe it when I see it happening. Until then, I see too many ways for the gun buyer to lose in court and the FFL to get screwed over by the state and ATF. In the current political climate, it is fine to be the Internet warrior and say screw it and what is being done is unconstitutional. At the moment it takes a ton of money and years of one's life to fight the fight. Until we can get a lot more people on our side to stand up all at once and vote the idiots out of office and protest loudly enough to scare them, that is the way it is.

If you want to fight the good fight, set up your own gun store in CA and on day 30 release the firearm without getting the release after hold from the CA DOJ. Announce it to the ATF and DOJ openly and see for yourself what happens. Or do what many CA FFLs are doing and pay their attorney for their best advice as to what they should do and follow that advice until the dust settles and we all learn what the DOJ does and what letter the ATF sends to CA FFLs about how to handle the new law.

It was fun.

Tincon
12-01-2013, 9:46 PM
I do still live in CA, with no intention of leaving. As to whether the legal system follows the law, well, that's really outside the scope of this thread.

kemasa
12-02-2013, 12:17 PM
FYI, I am not paid to spoon feed you, plus I was not on the computer, so the comments saying that you are still waiting helps to convince me to let you find your own information or, in your own words, you can prove that what I said does not exist :-).

jeremiah12
12-02-2013, 6:18 PM
I do still live in CA, with no intention of leaving. As to whether the legal system follows the law, well, that's really outside the scope of this thread.

Actually, that is the scope of this thread. Reread the title, 9/19/2013 CGF Files New Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit to Stop DOJ's DROS Delay Policy.

Per the ATF, a CA FFL cannot release a firearm that has been placed on delay status until the CA DOJ tells the FFL to release after delay. The reason is when the DOJ sends the release after delay message, it means they redid what ever background check is required to satisfy Federal law. If the DOJ does not update the status and leaves it at just delayed, then their is no proof the federally mandate background check has been run and passed within the previous 30 days. The ATF will take notice of that.

At this point alone, it does not matter what the new CA penal code says, the transfer would violate federal law and/or ATF regulations (a passed federally mandated background check within the past 30 days).

I am trying to make sure I do not misspeak because I do not know the exact correct and precise terms. I do know the general process and do not want to get hung up over whether it is called the NICS or whatever.

It appears that CA does not provide a way for the FFL to run the federal background check independent of the CA DOJ. So until the CA DOJ tells the FFL that the Federal background check is completed and successfully passed, the FFL cannot release the firearm, no matter what CA state law is.

I would not be surprised if nothing changes. The lawmakers said this legislation was to give the DOJ more time to do background checks. They were already taking more time illegally and were not following the law. Why should we expect them to follow the new law. People have been delayed for a year or more and just because they pass a law saying a delay cannot be more than 30 days when originally they had to do it in 10 days and we think it will fix it?

Why was 30 days selected, why not 45 days, or 60 days, or 25 days?

Maybe 30 seemed like a good number but I find it ironic that the ATF also requires a gun be transferred within 30 days of a background check. The new state law says FFL may but geez, we forgot about the federal requirement of a background check being passed within 30 days. We have not done that yet because we are still sorting out the concerns that had us place you on hold to begin with. We will get around to it eventually.

So the gun stays in jail and it will take more litigation to force the DOJ to follow the spirit of the law. In the mean time the low-information people will be screaming at the FFL saying State law says you can release it but ignoring that gun purchases have to satisfy federal and state laws.

This is what I meant about learning from this discussion. I figured out that it has nothing to do with the FFL may deliver the firearm. It has to do with the DOJ having to do its part first and then notifying the FFL that the background check is completed and the transfer is GTG under federal law.

Tincon
12-02-2013, 6:21 PM
The issue is whether the DOJ is following the law. The DOJ isn't "the legal system." If the legal system isn't following the law, there is no point in having a lawsuit.

Tincon
12-02-2013, 6:23 PM
Also, if you didn't want to be a tool of government oppression, you could just call the damn ATF and ask when the NICS was actually run, and if was less than 30 days turn over the gun. But apparently you have picked your side, and it isn't ours.

kemasa
12-02-2013, 6:52 PM
Also, if you didn't want to be a tool of government oppression, you could just call the damn ATF and ask when the NICS was actually run, and if was less than 30 days turn over the gun. But apparently you have picked your side, and it isn't ours.

Really?

Please explain to us FFLs why we could call the BATF to check to see when the NICS was run when it is actually the FBI who runs NICS and since it is the CA DOJ who does the background check and the NICS system is not used, why the NICS system would be checked at all since it has nothing to do with it.

Next, please explain to all of the FFLs here in CA actually how to do that. As said, the NICS system is a background check system for FFLs to call in for those in states in which don't have their own background check system, which means CA FFLs can not use it. You have to register, but those in CA can not. There is no way for a CA FFL to call the FBI or the BATF to check on the status. There is also the issue that the CA DROS number would not mean a thing to the FBI, so there is no way to reference it, which is a bit of a problem as well.

But with all that, I am awaiting your great knowledge in how this can be done as I am quite willing to learn this feat of magic as it could be extremely useful to know.

I suspect that most FFLs have picked their side, which is the side of following the law, as well as reality vs. fantasy (which is the side it seems that you have chosen).

Please note what agency runs NICS:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

taperxz
12-02-2013, 9:00 PM
Really?

Please explain to us FFLs why we could call the BATF to check to see when the NICS was run when it is actually the FBI who runs NICS and since it is the CA DOJ who does the background check and the NICS system is not used, why the NICS system would be checked at all since it has nothing to do with it.

Next, please explain to all of the FFLs here in CA actually how to do that. As said, the NICS system is a background check system for FFLs to call in for those in states in which don't have their own background check system, which means CA FFLs can not use it. You have to register, but those in CA can not. There is no way for a CA FFL to call the FBI or the BATF to check on the status. There is also the issue that the CA DROS number would not mean a thing to the FBI, so there is no way to reference it, which is a bit of a problem as well.

But with all that, I am awaiting your great knowledge in how this can be done as I am quite willing to learn this feat of magic as it could be extremely useful to know.

I suspect that most FFLs have picked their side, which is the side of following the law, as well as reality vs. fantasy (which is the side it seems that you have chosen).

Please note what agency runs NICS:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

I agree with you that Tincon should know that the NICS system is not used in CA. However, the same law and protocol for release of the firearm is used universally upon the background check. "at least its supposed to be that way" If thats not the case, CA is violating the civil rights of gun owners/purchasers. Your opinion helps facilitate the antis and you are part of the problem.

There isn't a single post you make where you don't seem to be judge, jury. congress and the supreme court. and you are only an ffl

You still fail to back it up with court cases or law on the books.

kcbrown
12-03-2013, 5:27 AM
The issue is whether the DOJ is following the law. The DOJ isn't "the legal system." If the legal system isn't following the law, there is no point in having a lawsuit.

But can that legal system force actors to violate the laws or regulations that are in place? I think that's the root of the problem here.

Suppose the CA DOJ has placed the firearm on hold. Under that circumstance, there is no guarantee that the background check that satisfies federal law has been performed. For all you know, that check may be the last thing the CA DOJ does before clearing the firearm for release.

So if the CA DOJ has not performed the federally-approved background check, then by releasing the firearm to the buyer, the FFL will be in violation of federal law even if that release is demanded by a court order.


And so, the question: can the courts force one to take an action that would violate the law? If not, then what action can the court possibly force here that would be guaranteed to grant the buyer the relief he seeks (release of his firearm)?

kemasa
12-03-2013, 10:55 AM
I agree with you that Tincon should know that the NICS system is not used in CA.


Which shows that he does not know what he is talking about. He also does not seem to know it is the FBI who runs NICS, not the BATF, nor that it is impossible for a FFL to call up either the FBI or the BATF to see if the CA DOJ has done a background check on a buyer, plus without proof, the FFL has a problem.


However, the same law and protocol for release of the firearm is used universally upon the background check. "at least its supposed to be that way" If thats not the case, CA is violating the civil rights of gun owners/purchasers. Your opinion helps facilitate the antis and you are part of the problem.


Sorry, but your statements are false. CA is different than every other state due to CA laws. If you think that it violates the rights of people then sue. FFLs have to follow the law.

Your petty personal attack are bogus and is just plain wrong. FFLs have to follow the law or they can be put out of business or put in jail.

BTW, FFLs work based on paperwork. A FFL can not just call and ask someone if the required background check was done an rely on that. There needs to be proof since otherwise during an audit there could be a problem.


There isn't a single post you make where you don't seem to be judge, jury. congress and the supreme court. and you are only an ffl


Then I judge you to be a person who just likes to make things up and that you are not based in reality.


You still fail to back it up with court cases or law on the books.

It is not my job to spoon feed you or anyone else. Do you see hordes of other FFLs stating that what I am saying is wrong? All I see is people who are not FFLs making bogus claims of the way things are. I agree that things should be different, but until then the FFL has to follow the law.

Tincon
12-03-2013, 10:59 AM
Which shows that he does not know what he is talking about. He also does not seem to know it is the FBI who runs NICS, not the BATF, nor that it is impossible for a FFL to call up either the FBI or the BATF to see if the CA DOJ has done a background check on a buyer, plus without proof, the FFL has a problem.


BATF regulates FFLs, not the FBI. If you want to know when a NICS check was run, you can call the ATF, you have at least one contact there, and they will tell you. Not rocket science. Also, for every DROS that goes through in CA there is a NICS check. As I said, in CA is just is not run directly by the FFL. I should think as an FFL you would be aware of this.

taperxz
12-03-2013, 11:19 AM
[QUOTE=kemasa;12898735]


Sorry, but your statements are false. CA is different than every other state due to CA laws. If you think that it violates the rights of people then sue. FFLs have to follow the law.



No its not.





It is not my job to spoon feed you or anyone else. Do you see hordes of other FFLs stating that what I am saying is wrong? All I see is people who are not FFLs making bogus claims of the way things are. I agree that things should be different, but until then the FFL has to follow the law.


Thank you very much for not spoon feeding me and others rhetoric BS that you NEVER back up with facts. Your opinion does not equate to facts either.

I have seen you go round and round with other FFL's who post facts and you still argue with your opinion with no reference to facts or law. No one is right 100% of the time, but it sure would be nice if you can give us fact based answers instead of your opinionated remarks.

kemasa
12-03-2013, 11:46 AM
BATF regulates FFLs, not the FBI. If you want to know when a NICS check was run, you can call the ATF, you have at least one contact there, and they will tell you. Not rocket science. Also, for every DROS that goes through in CA there is a NICS check. As I said, in CA is just is not run directly by the FFL. I should think as an FFL you would be aware of this.

Yes, the BATF regulates FFLs, but take a little bit of time to see who runs NICS.

Also, as I said, the FFL would need documentation, not verbal.

What you are saying is just not possible.

kcbrown
12-03-2013, 11:52 AM
BATF regulates FFLs, not the FBI. If you want to know when a NICS check was run, you can call the ATF, you have at least one contact there, and they will tell you. Not rocket science. Also, for every DROS that goes through in CA there is a NICS check. As I said, in CA is just is not run directly by the FFL. I should think as an FFL you would be aware of this.

Suppose the NICS check hadn't been run.

What relief would you suggest the plaintiff be given by the court, that would not violate his right to keep and bear arms?

jeremiah12
12-03-2013, 7:43 PM
Under current California law, the DOJ must permit a firearm purchaser to receive their firearm at the end of the 10-day DROS background check period unless it determines that the purchaser is not eligible to possess or purchase firearms.

This is from the press release from the post that started this thread. Currently, there is not supposed to be any delay. At the end of 10 days if the DOJ cannot prove a purchaser is ineligible, then they have to approve the sale. The DOJ is not following the current law. They leave the purchase on hold simply by not sending the approval information to the FFL for the background check. This is the information the FFL needs to record on the paperwork and keep for the BATF for those wonderful yearly audits where they come and make sure every blank space was filled out properly.

This is from an anti web site, but it does explain the background check process in CA: (http://smartgunlaws.org/background-checks-in-california/)

Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database.
California authorizes, but does not require, the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to act as a point of contact “to the extent that funding is available.” Since funding is available, California is a point of contact state for firearm purchaser background checks. Firearms dealers must therefore initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting DOJ.

So, again I have learned more. CA does not use the FBI NICS system. In CA the FFL runs the background check through the CA DOJ and it is the DOJ that tells the FFL if the purchaser is approved or denied. It appears that CA FFLs cannot go directly to the FBI and use the NCIS system because our state laws state that as long as funding is available, the CA DOJ is the point of contact for all background checks. (Of course they will find money for that).

The new law says that after 30 days the FFL may transfer the firearm but the FFL cannot legally do it under federal law without a background check approval by the DOJ.

The DOJ is currently not following the law, hence the filing of the lawsuit that is the topic of this thread. Why are FFLs not delivering firearms after 10 days right now? They do not have the background check approval from the DOJ. After 1/1/14 what do they need from the DOJ before they can deliver a firearm? They need the background check approval from the DOJ. The new law really means the DOJ has 30 days to complete the background check and clear up any holds. At the end they are supposed to either deny or approve. If they leave the purchase on hold, the FFL is stuck without an approval because the DOJ has not completed the federal background check. They may have done it and found nothing, but the check may be on hold for a state issue. The check could be on hold for a state issue and so the federal check had not been ran yet. There is no way to know. FFLs do not do the federal checks themselves in CA, the DOJ does.

So, if you want a specific law or regulation, send a letter to the BATF with your question about the new CA law with the hypothetical of what the FFL can do if the DOJ does not give a release on day 30 but keeps the firearm on hold. What are the consequences if the FFL releases it without the DOJ giving notice to release it and evidence that a background check has been completed? Can the FFL run a NICS check through the FBI system and if it clears then release the firearm?

For those who think it can be done this way, ask the people in charge yourself. Then you can come back here and prove the rest of us wrong.

kemasa
12-04-2013, 11:59 AM
The DOJ is not following the current law. They leave the purchase on hold simply by not sending the approval information to the FFL for the background check. This is the information the FFL needs to record on the paperwork and keep for the BATF for those wonderful yearly audits where they come and make sure every blank space was filled out properly.


Actually, this is not accurate. When the DROS is submitted, the FFL gets a DROS number, which is entered on the 4473, as well as printed out and the person signs it. If nothing else happens, the FFL can deliver the firearm after 240 hours and before 720 hours.

What happens now is that the DOJ calls and sends a notice on the DROS system saying that the buyer is delayed or denied. At which point the FFL can not complete the transfer until a release after delay is received.

In 2014, there is a button that the FFL is going to have to click on to release the firearm. This ensures that the FFL does not release the firearm too soon or too late. It is unknown what will happen if the transaction is delayed. It also confirms that the firearm was actually transferred and when that occurred. Currently, the FFL has to record the date and time on the DROS form.

low67vdubinnocal
12-06-2013, 9:00 PM
I might be going through this myself right now with a call from a dealer today about a notice of delay on a handgun buy from nov 30th. never been convicted of anything and have bought both hand guns and long guns in the past including a registered norinco mak 90 I don't even take out anymore. A couple days later I also bought a 223 savage rifle from a different dealer but have not heard yet if there is a delay on that purchase also. It has been at least 15 years from my last gun buy and all I had to show back than was my hunting licence. I had to take a hand gun safety test this time but got 100%. Not sure why I would have a delay I own two hand guns and ten rifles. Strange seeing as I can vote and be called for jury duty every other year. I thought I was an upstanding guy. Maybe I'm a closet hippy and didn't know it.

stonefly-2
12-07-2013, 7:47 PM
Well first time here but found this thread,

I purchased my first gun on Tuesday last week, a AR 15, I have never been arrested nor do I have any outstanding traffic tickets etc.

I got a call from the store I purchased the rifle from saying that my application has been "delayed"

I called the number for the DOJ he provided, and get the "if your delayed please be patient, but we are not taking calls at this time, go to our website to get the form to get your fingerprints done for a background check"

I plan on going to get this, but who do I contact once its done? they don't have a voice-mail or any type of contact info for delayed cases.

my pickup date isn't until the 2nd of December, is it possible that it was delayed due to the holiday?

any help or suggestions anyone could provide would be very helpful

i chose not to provide fingerprints, livescan or any personal info.. between this and obamacare there seems to be an awful lot of interest in "starting a file" on us. not going there either. if you think they are here to help you don't yet understand the situation.

thedrickel
12-07-2013, 9:55 PM
I might be going through this myself right now with a call from a dealer today about a notice of delay on a handgun buy from nov 30th. never been convicted of anything and have bought both hand guns and long guns in the past including a registered norinco mak 90 I don't even take out anymore. A couple days later I also bought a 223 savage rifle from a different dealer but have not heard yet if there is a delay on that purchase also. It has been at least 15 years from my last gun buy and all I had to show back than was my hunting licence. I had to take a hand gun safety test this time but got 100%. Not sure why I would have a delay I own two hand guns and ten rifles. Strange seeing as I can vote and be called for jury duty every other year. I thought I was an upstanding guy. Maybe I'm a closet hippy and didn't know it.

Have you been arrested without a clear disposition before . . . say . . . 1988 or so? Most likely between 1970 and 1985, I would guess.

low67vdubinnocal
12-08-2013, 12:07 AM
Yes. case was dismissed about 10 years ago in queens New York. So after reading massive amounts of info here on calguns I guess i'm about to get the business from my own state of birth after 55 years. I'm not sure if I will have to wait it out and prove I have no convictions with the dismissed paper work I have from new york or how it will play out. I got the second call today 12/09/13 that the long gun is now also on doj delay. I know there is no open case in new york as I have to have a back ground check every year for my employment. I called the Doj and got a fax number to send the closed case info too and Mr.Doj said it would be released right away. I tried looking the case up in the New york court system but nothing shows up at all I'm guessing because the case was dismissed. Not sure how The doj is able to find closed cases and use them against you.

low67vdubinnocal
12-12-2013, 2:29 PM
Had to send a payment to Queens New York for a certificate of disposition for a dismissed case in 2004. 10 years ago next month and pay an outstanding parking ticket in carson city NV. from 2010 other than that I have no idea why I would have a stupid delay when I already own hand guns and the mak 90. Does anyone know who exactly you talk to if you wanna find out exactly what is causing the delay ? Can you make an appointment with doj and go over the issue ?

nick
12-12-2013, 2:42 PM
Hmm, are outstanding parking tickets prohibiting offenses now? Or what's the justification for using them to delay/deny exercising one's right? Kinda curious, what the justification for using arrests with no conviction, as well. Guilty until proven innocent is the official main legal theory now?

low67vdubinnocal
12-12-2013, 3:10 PM
Not sure if the traffic ticket had anything to do with it or not just paid it to cover My/a. The doj guy I talked to last week would not say what the issue was If I need to make an appointment with them I will. Can't figure why nothing would show up on my employers back ground check if I were a hood I sure as hell would not be allowed to work nation wide with my company.

torquen
12-13-2013, 12:58 PM
A close friend bought 3 lowers and had them sent to his local ffl. This is his first firearm purchase. He brought in all identification needed and filled out the Dros paper work. Today he was called by the FFL saying the Dros is delayed and flagged but could not provide why.
He moved here from Florida 3 years ago. Has never been in any type of trouble. What should he be doing to get this resolved before the deadline of the first? Thanks.

low67vdubinnocal
12-13-2013, 4:08 PM
Well I did get my answer as to who to talk to at doj about your delay. Nobody. Mrs.doj told me today on the phone that the doj is a closed to the public office and you can not make an appointment or talk to them about your delay. They are not taking calls and will not talk to you on the phone about your delay.Kinda like in the wizard of oz. You can follow the yellow brick road all the way to oz but the wizard wont talk to you when you arrive at doj oz. To be honest I thought every part of our government was open to the people it served. Mrs. doj said you will just have to wait or reapply after the first of the year and repay the fees. Craziest thing I ever heard when I already own firearms.

hvengel
12-14-2013, 12:44 PM
Well I did get my answer as to who to talk to at doj about your delay. Nobody. Mrs.doj told me today on the phone that the doj is a closed to the public office and you can not make an appointment or talk to them about your delay. They are not taking calls and will not talk to you on the phone about your delay.Kinda like in the wizard of oz. You can follow the yellow brick road all the way to oz but the wizard wont talk to you when you arrive at doj oz. To be honest I thought every part of our government was open to the people it served. Mrs. doj said you will just have to wait or reapply after the first of the year and repay the fees. Craziest thing I ever heard when I already own firearms.

Well it appears that you don't understand how "our government" works since you believe that they are public servants. They stopped being public servants a long time ago and now are the public's overlords. So don't get uppity and expect them to treat you like you are one of those paying their salary. In their view you are just a peon there to pay taxes so that they can lord over you.

ceehawkx707
12-14-2013, 12:56 PM
i got a call on Friday telling me I could get my gun after 133 days. unlike a lot of others I did nothing at all. I tried to call the doj 3 times without getting threw. I did nothing cause I wanted to let all of the lawsuits to play out. as I felt it was not up to me to prove I could have a gun as I have some already as well as a letter from the doj saying I could have them. as far as this thred. it has gone from a place to get help with getting your guns to a back and forth im right your wrong kinda thing. we are fighting each other instead of helping one another. that's my 2 cents. good luck to anyone that's on delay

Greatturtle
12-16-2013, 1:04 PM
Well I did get my answer as to who to talk to at doj about your delay. Nobody. Mrs.doj told me today on the phone that the doj is a closed to the public office and you can not make an appointment or talk to them about your delay. They are not taking calls and will not talk to you on the phone about your delay.Kinda like in the wizard of oz. You can follow the yellow brick road all the way to oz but the wizard wont talk to you when you arrive at doj oz. To be honest I thought every part of our government was open to the people it served. Mrs. doj said you will just have to wait or reapply after the first of the year and repay the fees. Craziest thing I ever heard when I already own firearms.


when she told you that you could reapply after the first of the year did she give you any more information about that? any mention of the new 30 day policy as the reason to re-apply?

cause if that is all it is going to take then fine ill pony up ANOTHER 30-40 bucks to speed this along

low67vdubinnocal
12-16-2013, 1:21 PM
Mrs.doj did not say much of anything useful and had an attitude that she was in control and if you don't like it to bad. I don't see why I should have to reapply or pay again. Only thing else I can think of to do is ask my local state assembly person why you cant get info from doj without paying extra fees.

fizux
12-16-2013, 1:37 PM
Mrs.doj did not say much of anything useful and had an attitude that she was in control and if you don't like it to bad. I don't see why I should have to reapply or pay again. Only thing else I can think of to do is ask my local state assembly person why you cant get info from doj without paying extra fees.
Well, for $400, I know where you can petition for the redress of your grievance. As part of that process, DOJ would have to show its hand.

It is a bit offensive that you paid $25 for DROS, which is essentially a fee to pay for the government's record-keeping system. Now, you have to pay another fee for them to tell you what records they screwed up.

Darklyte27
12-19-2013, 7:08 PM
Neighbor got to pick up his gun yesterday, he was 1 month short of a year.

low67vdubinnocal
12-23-2013, 4:05 PM
Well I got my notice of discharge back from Queens New York today showing the charges were dropped in 2004 and the case was closed so I'm going to fax that form in with my DL in the morning and see if that clears up my notice of delay before the end of the year.

Eddy's Shooting Sports
12-24-2013, 10:08 AM
Good news. Just released three long guns to a customer on hold since early November.

Bad news. Still have another customer waiting since January.....


Eddy's Shooting Sports
(650)969-GUNS

low67vdubinnocal
12-24-2013, 11:19 AM
The part that pisses me off the most is having that money In limbo. Guess Doj figures you will just give up And go away. That wont happen for me.

low67vdubinnocal
12-24-2013, 11:27 AM
Holy crap just got the call And my hand Gun was released. Didnt hear from my long Gun yet but expect that also.

JDay
12-24-2013, 1:40 PM
Holy crap just got the call And my hand Gun was released. Didnt hear from my long Gun yet but expect that also.

I got a call like that earlier this year, handgun released but not the long gun. I went straight to the FFL, 15 minutes away. By the time I got there the rifle had been released.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

low67vdubinnocal
12-24-2013, 1:55 PM
Now both are released and ready for pick up have the hand gun and going after the other right now. Still have no idea what it was that delayed them but four hours after faxing the dropped charges paper work from New York I got the call to pick them up. I wanted one more long gun before the new year now I guess I can.

low67vdubinnocal
12-25-2013, 12:00 AM
I do wanna thank this board and everyone that posted good info on all the firearm rules that helped me figure out who to contact in order to get my delay lifted. Thanks everyone and have a great holiday season. I have watched this board for years and read plenty but never bothered to sign up or donate until now. In the future if I get info thats helpful I will post it up. Again thankyou everyone.

TheZoo
12-25-2013, 10:25 AM
Well I got my notice of discharge back from Queens New York today showing the charges were dropped in 2004 and the case was closed so I'm going to fax that form in with my DL in the morning and see if that clears up my notice of delay before the end of the year.
What was the fax number you used to send them the info obtained?

low67vdubinnocal
12-25-2013, 8:20 PM
I will find it and send it to you.

Greatturtle
12-26-2013, 8:30 AM
What was the fax number you used to send them the info obtained?

would love this info as well, not sure how much good it would do since I still cant get any info from the DOJ to know what the heck the delay was about in the first place

JDay
12-26-2013, 7:02 PM
would love this info as well, not sure how much good it would do since I still cant get any info from the DOJ to know what the heck the delay was about in the first place

Did you do a LiveScan and pull your state and federal records? That's the only way to find out anything.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

kemasa
12-27-2013, 12:02 PM
Did you do a LiveScan and pull your state and federal records? That's the only way to find out anything.


I received a letter today from the CA DOJ. The change in the law, AB500, also seems to have a means of finding out why (CA PC 28220(f)(2)). It says that starting in 2014 the CA DOJ will send a letter to the purchaser explaining how he or she can obtain a copy of the record upon which the delay was based.

Librarian
12-27-2013, 4:46 PM
I received a letter today from the CA DOJ. The change in the law, AB500, also seems to have a means of finding out why (CA PC 28220(f)(2)). It says that starting in 2014 the CA DOJ will send a letter to the purchaser explaining how he or she can obtain a copy of the record upon which the delay was based.

Yes - (2) The department shall notify the purchaser by mail regarding the delay and explain the process by which the purchaser may obtain a copy of the criminal or mental health record the department has on file for the purchaser. Upon receipt of that criminal or mental health record, the purchaser shall report any inaccuracies or incompleteness to the department on an approved form.No guarantee of any turn-around time, though.

low67vdubinnocal
12-29-2013, 6:47 PM
I got one more long gun last week before the new rules start and will see if there is a delay this time. One thing Is I still don't know what the delay was about for sure. The items I faxed in were the closed case notice from 2004 NY. state the cleared traffic ticket from NV. state a copy of my DL. handgun certificate prior hunting licences and a letter from DOJ. with a list of all of my registered firearms just to cover my/A. So it was an extra $10 to mail the request to New York and ask that it be returned asap. I did add a nice Christmas card for the court employees. Never hurts to be nice. At least now you will be able to find out what the delay is all about.

prsnmac4
01-02-2014, 1:15 PM
I purchased 3 long guns after clearing my CII from the CA DOJ, got my 17b and 1203.4 granted.

Lets see what happens in my case.

Greatturtle
01-03-2014, 11:05 AM
Spoke to my FFL , he submitted a form for me today basically a update to my current DROS that brings it current to the new Jan 1 law change, will have to wait and see what happens I will post with updates

low67vdubinnocal
01-04-2014, 5:45 PM
Picked up my long gun today no delay this time. Guess everything I faxed in cleared whatever it was up.

JDay
01-05-2014, 10:19 AM
Picked up my long gun today no delay this time. Guess everything I faxed in cleared whatever it was up.

How long ago was your last DROS?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

low67vdubinnocal
01-05-2014, 6:14 PM
Dec 24th was the last DROS. picked up Jan 4th. This time with a receipt from the dealer showing approved. Never seen a receipt like this before figured it was part of the new rules. The prior DROS. from Nov 30th was delayed until Dec 24.

JDay
01-06-2014, 8:40 AM
They probably gave you a copy of the approval letter incase you got stopped on the way home and the cop wanted to know why your New rifle wasn't registered. Your DROS may not have been delayed because you were approved in the last 30 days.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

kemasa
01-06-2014, 9:18 AM
It is part of the new rules. The FFL is supposed to print out the final DROS when the firearm is delivered and have the customer sign it.

Greatturtle
01-09-2014, 3:02 PM
WOHOOO FFL just called my DROS was approved!! going to pick up in the morning, the FFL submitted a secondary form for me I will get the name of it and post it here for anyone that is still having issues, per the FFL it does not restart the DROS process and there is no cost

prsnmac4
01-10-2014, 3:30 PM
10 days was up today at 10am, just left the store with my purchase. After my 17b and 1203.4.

Funny thing is that I received my PFEC two days ago and it said I was not eligible so I figured I was gonna get a delay or denied dros but nope.

PFEC DENIED

DROS APPROVED!!!

HowardW56
01-10-2014, 3:52 PM
10 days was up today at 10am, just left the store with my purchase. After my 17b and 1203.4.

Funny thing is that I received my PFEC two days ago and it said I was not eligible so I figured I was gonna get a delay or denied dros but nope.

PFEC DENIED

DROS APPROVED!!!

Amazing, DOJ is absolutely incompetent...

JDay
01-10-2014, 4:42 PM
10 days was up today at 10am, just left the store with my purchase. After my 17b and 1203.4.

Funny thing is that I received my PFEC two days ago and it said I was not eligible so I figured I was gonna get a delay or denied dros but nope.

PFEC DENIED

DROS APPROVED!!!

And now you're probably flagged by the APPS. I wouldn't be surprised if DOJ agents come to your door without a warrant and demand to search for firearms.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

low67vdubinnocal
01-10-2014, 5:11 PM
And now you're probably flagged by the APPS. I wouldn't be surprised if DOJ agents come to your door without a warrant and demand to search for firearms.

Now would that suck or what...

prsnmac4
01-10-2014, 6:57 PM
And now you're probably flagged by the APPS. I wouldn't be surprised if DOJ agents come to your door without a warrant and demand to search for firearms.

What I'm gonna do is transfer firearms asap and call DOJ first thing Monday and straighten it all out.

I'm wondering why they didn't deny my DROS right from the beginning.

Anyone have experience with turning into local law enforcement for safe keeping?



Now would that suck or what...

Yeah it would suck but I don't want any issues with the DOJ. I am not a prohibited person From my rap sheet that was updated. I will get to the bottom of this.

prsnmac4
01-10-2014, 6:57 PM
And now you're probably flagged by the APPS. I wouldn't be surprised if DOJ agents come to your door without a warrant and demand to search for firearms.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


What I'm gonna do is transfer firearms asap and call DOJ first thing Monday and straighten it all out.

I'm wondering why they didn't deny my DROS right from the beginning.

Anyone have experience with turning into local law enforcement for safe keeping?

CSDGuy
01-10-2014, 7:07 PM
What I'm gonna do is transfer firearms asap and call DOJ first thing Monday and straighten it all out.

I'm wondering why they didn't deny my DROS right from the beginning.

Anyone have experience with turning into local law enforcement for safe keeping?
All I would say is that I wouldn't turn my firearms over to any LE agency for safe keeping. The process to get them back is more onerous than what you just went through.

Check the dates on your PFEC and see if you can figure out what date your file was updated with correct information. Those dates are relevant and may explain how one showed denied and the other was approved.

JDay
01-10-2014, 7:52 PM
What I'm gonna do is transfer firearms asap and call DOJ first thing Monday and straighten it all out.

I'm wondering why they didn't deny my DROS right from the beginning.

Anyone have experience with turning into local law enforcement for safe keeping?

Just give them to your wife or someone else you trust until you get this cleared up. You can be prosecuted for having gun or ammunition after failing the PFEC. You could even do another PFEC while having someone hold onto them and then get them back if you pass that one.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

HowardW56
01-10-2014, 8:22 PM
What I'm gonna do is transfer firearms asap and call DOJ first thing Monday and straighten it all out.

I'm wondering why they didn't deny my DROS right from the beginning.

Anyone have experience with turning into local law enforcement for safe keeping?

If there is a genuine concern and if I were you, I would not contact DOJ or Law Enforcement. I would call my lawyer and let him, or her, contact DOJ, nothing your lawyer says can be used to incriminate you...

If DOJ were to show up at my door, I would not open the door, I wouldn't go outside, unless they had a warrant, I would just ask them to leave... If you have a lawyer, give them his or her telephone number and tell them to call your lawyer...

low67vdubinnocal
01-10-2014, 8:37 PM
Just give them to your wife or someone else you trust until you get this cleared up. You can be prosecuted for having gun or ammunition after failing the PFEC. You could even do another PFEC while having someone hold onto them and then get them back if you pass that one.

Good advise right there in my opinion...

prsnmac4
01-10-2014, 8:44 PM
If there is a genuine concern and if I were you, I would not contact DOJ or Law Enforcement. I would call my lawyer and let him, or her, contact DOJ, nothing your lawyer says can be used to incriminate you...

If DOJ were to show up at my door, I would not open the door, I wouldn't go outside, unless they had a warrant, I would just ask them to leave... If you have a lawyer, give them his or her telephone number and tell them to call your lawyer...

I'm thinking it has to be error with something that has not been updated in one database or another. I have all my paperwork clearing my name in my opinion but that doesn't matter at the end of the day.

I will be contacting the attorneys at Michel and associates to see if they can help me fix this situation. I did nothing wrong and if the FFL called me tomorrow with a denial I would work with them to resolve the problem.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

prsnmac4
01-10-2014, 8:48 PM
Just give them to your wife or someone else you trust until you get this cleared up. You can be prosecuted for having gun or ammunition after failing the PFEC. You could even do another PFEC while having someone hold onto them and then get them back if you pass that one.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

JDay what do you exactly mean by give to my wife? The Doj would still take possession of it because I would still have access to it. Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've been reading it has to be out of the house and out of your name.

Does the FFL get an okay from the DOJ in regards to the dros or only denials?

The reason I'm asking about that is because the date of the the PFEC report and the DROS report.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

JDay
01-11-2014, 2:36 PM
Your wife can send in the oplaw form with $19 to get it in her name. As for access to the firearm, she can lock it in a DOJ approved container that you do not have a key or combination to.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

prsnmac4
01-13-2014, 8:49 AM
Your wife can send in the oplaw form with $19 to get it in her name. As for access to the firearm, she can lock it in a DOJ approved container that you do not have a key or combination to.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


UPDATE

I just got off the phone with the DOJ firearms division and I explained everything.

In regards to agents knocking on my door:
She said as long as your CII report doesn't reflect anything that makes me a prohibited person then I'm not a prohibited person. My 17b and 1203.4 are reflecting so no worries. She recommended instead of doing a PFEC do a live scan check because that is more accurate. In my case since I have the updated CII then I should do another PFEC

In regard to PFEC saying I'm denied:
She said the date on the letter is not the report date even though it says "as of this report check dated ..." She said it is usually ran few week earlier and that it was probably ran before my CII was updated.

DROS and weapons release:
She said ultimately if the PFEC was correct and I was inelgible then I would've got an automatic DROS denial on Jan 6th, my purchase was Dec 31st. She guaranteed that I would not pass DROS if I had anything on my record and or was a prohibited person.

So now I will send another PFEC in just for the hell of it, I'm glad this is resolved.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Librarian
01-13-2014, 11:53 AM
Glad things seem to be straightened out...
JDay what do you exactly mean by give to my wife? The Doj would still take possession of it because I would still have access to it. Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've been reading it has to be out of the house and out of your name.
But, as to this, you correctly note the requirement is both that you do not own, and do not have access. The transfer to one's wife handles the 'own' part; a lock box to which the prohibited person does not have the key/combination answers the 'access' part - but the owner must exercise extreme care.

TheZoo
01-24-2014, 7:53 PM
After 8 months on delay, finally received "the call" from my FFL, come pick up my Glock. Picked it up on the 10th of this month after FFL resubmitted DROS info into new DOJ system. Unbelievable it took this long but the long wait is finally over. Big thanks to Calguns efforts last year, as I think the efforts help stop the injustice practiced at the DOJ. It is unfortunate those in position to serve we the people, do just the opposite.

BobbyFord
01-25-2014, 8:00 AM
My understanding of new CA DOJ laws regarding approval, denial, delay or rejected status, is that the CA DOJ now has a limit of 30 days to either deny or approve. Is this correct? If so, won't this increase ownership denials?
Thoughts please.

TheZoo
02-09-2014, 8:59 AM
No posts here for a while. Is it safe to assume indefinite DROS delays have ended?

Tincon
02-09-2014, 9:02 AM
No posts here for a while. Is it safe to assume indefinite DROS delays have ended?

They were ended by law as of Jan 1 2014.

BobbyFord
02-09-2014, 9:03 AM
They have to approve/deny within 30 days. I believe this new law will result in more denials.

Tincon
02-09-2014, 9:12 AM
They have to approve/deny within 30 days. I believe this new law will result in more denials.

Not sure why you think that. In any event, a denial triggers the ability to actually challenge and appeal the denial. With the previously illegal "delay," buyers would be unable to receive their firearms and would have no recourse except calling the DOJ and being ignored.

BobbyFord
02-09-2014, 9:24 AM
Not sure why you think that. In any event, a denial triggers the ability to actually challenge and appeal the denial. With the previously illegal "delay," buyers would be unable to receive their firearms and would have no recourse except calling the DOJ and being ignored.

Although the delays were illegal, I believe the cause for issuing delayed status was the inundation of requests, and under-staffing at the DOJ.

PJ205
02-21-2014, 3:58 PM
Just happened to me. My first gun that ive ever purchased... was supposed to pick it up tomorrow but got a call on Wednesday saying that I was on hold courtesy of DOJ. I went into the shop and she immediately asked me for my drivers license and handgun safety card so she could make copies. This whole process started on the 5th and has been nothing but jumping through hoops ever since. No tickets, one DUI (pot) arrest in 2005 where charges were dropped during pre-trial, registration up to date, all information submitted... looks like ill just be hanging out until I hear something.

NickTheGreek
02-21-2014, 4:17 PM
Whelp, add me to the list. Those of you who know me in person know I have a squeaky clean record and I DROS A LOT of firearms. In fact, I picked up a pistol without any issues last week and decided to buy a new rifle right afterward. Nope, got a call from Bass Pro today saying I was delayed. I bought another rifle from another shop after the first rifle so I expect a phone call from that shop as well.

Audiojake
02-25-2014, 11:39 AM
New member here, Add me to the list.

I just purchased my first Handgun, Glock 22 Feb 15.

I am a US Marine (non active)

They just delayed my Dros. Called got the recording saying not taking calls, wont discuss your background or the delay over phone ETC.


I hate California so much right now. I am seriously considering moving to Arizona.

The only thing I can think of in might be in my background is a bar fight in 2000.

Wasn't even arrested, the Cops just held us all for the MP's to show up and escort us all back to base.

No charges filed, no arrests, just MP's chewing our asses.

Liberty1
02-25-2014, 11:30 PM
New member here, Add me to the list.



Welcome Marine! Stay in California, this is where the action is! But feel free to visit a free state for RnR to remind you what it is we are fighting for!

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9911961&postcount=1
send wildhawker an email regarding your delayed dross

PJ205
02-26-2014, 3:41 PM
Just happened to me. My first gun that ive ever purchased... was supposed to pick it up tomorrow but got a call on Wednesday saying that I was on hold courtesy of DOJ. I went into the shop and she immediately asked me for my drivers license and handgun safety card so she could make copies. This whole process started on the 5th and has been nothing but jumping through hoops ever since. No tickets, one DUI (pot) arrest in 2005 where charges were dropped during pre-trial, registration up to date, all information submitted... looks like ill just be hanging out until I hear something.

Update:

Decided to randomly call the DOJ again today and suprisingly got through in a couple of rings on the first try. The lady wouldnt tell me ANYTHING, not even a hint of what was going on (she actually didnt even pull up a record or look into it), but she was extremely nice and didnt seem like she was the type to just shut you up and get you off of the phone. She actually took about 10 minutes looking up laws and answering all of questions about releasing the weapon.

She made sure to explain the 30 day "undetermined" status where the dealership could have the option to release the gun to me and also told me that the delay doesnt affect the 10 day hold in any way so itll be immediately released if im not denied after the get the information they need for the delay. She told me that there is nothing I can do to help (doubt that) and all I can do is just wait. Like I said, she was extremely polite and really helpful in the things she did help me with, but I got nowhere in regards to my direct case.

I made sure to tell her that the dealership I bought the gun from didnt give me any type of information (a phone number, case number?, etc." regarding this and said in direct quoting, "you're at the mercy of the DOJ." After I spoke to the lady at DOJ, I called the place I bought the gun at to see if she had any type of information (phone number, case number? etc." just in case the lady at the DOJ was being lazy, I could call the number and speak to whoever is working on my stuff to see if I could do anything to move things along. The lady told me that there is nothing I can do, no phone number I could call, and no case number, but that she would call me when she hears from the DOJ. Considering that they've had a relatively large sum of my money, that she told me other things that turned out to be false when I was attempting to do the DROS process, and that I had just spoken to the DOJ about an hour before talking to her by finding a phone number on the internet, im a bit unhappy with this place at the moment.

End of long rant.

Audiojake
02-27-2014, 6:46 PM
Update on mine,

Still in a holding pattern, got the same story from the DOJ, can't help you, you have to wait.

My FFL dealer is not going to release the weapon unless it gets a (proceed) go ahead.

Does anyone know an FFL that will release the weapon if the DOJ gives (undecided) ? I will pay to have the weapon transferred. I an not going to keep doing Dros's till the cows come home.

I also sent in a request for my background check, see if my lawyer can seal/destroy any of bogus arrests I have.

Fu$%ing hate California.

NickTheGreek
03-02-2014, 7:28 PM
So an update on me.

I bought a pistol on 2/4 and picked it up on 2/14 with no issues.
I bought a Tikka rifle that same day I picked up the pistol 2/14.
I bought Ruger rifle on 2/20.

On 2/21 the first rifle (Tikka) was delayed.
The Ruger rifle (which I bought last) never got delayed and I picked that up today 3/2. I got a copy of the DROS [APPROVED] letter in case I need it later (Calguns, I will gladly testify)

So I bought another Tikka and am canceling the first one that was delayed.

PJ205
03-04-2014, 5:03 PM
And another update:

Decided to keep trying so I started calling again this morning. The very last time I was going to try, I got through to an extremely nice lady named Andra. I asked her if I was still on hold since I hadnt heard a word from the place I purchased the weapon at. She asked for my drivers license number then gave me an update letting me know I was still on hold. I then told her that I knew that she could give me specifics about why I was on hold, but asked her if she could give me a general idea. Without telling me anything, the first thing she said was the main reason that people go on hold is for an arrest with no disposition. In 2006 I was arrested for a misdemeanor, but the case was dismissed during pre-trial so I was never convicted. I asked her if there was anything I could do to hurry the process along and she let me know that I could attempt to get a disposition on my own then getting it to her which would be a lot quicker than waiting for the courthouse to do it on their terms. I then let her know that I had the court minutes which showed that the case was dismissed and asked if that would work to help release the delay, which she said might be accepted. She then gave me her name, the fax number, and the information she needed (the court minutes/sheet, my name, phone number, and drivers license number) then told me to fax it to her and she'll personally walk it over to the agent working on my case. Unfortunately I couldnt get to a fax machine for the rest of the day, but she said that tomorrow morning would be just as good and to make sure that I put her name at attention and she would try to get it resolved as soon as possible then call me when she has more information for me. She is by far the most helpful person I have come across since I started this whole process of buying my first handgun exactly one month ago. Ill post another update when I get more.

If you can't get through, keep calling. It takes awhile, but eventually you'll get someone. Both people that I have talked to at the DOJ have been extremely friendly and helpful.

chris
03-04-2014, 8:30 PM
So an update on me.

I bought a pistol on 2/4 and picked it up on 2/14 with no issues.
I bought a Tikka rifle that same day I picked up the pistol 2/14.
I bought Ruger rifle on 2/20.

On 2/21 the first rifle (Tikka) was delayed.
The Ruger rifle (which I bought last) never got delayed and I picked that up today 3/2. I got a copy of the DROS [APPROVED] letter in case I need it later (Calguns, I will gladly testify)

So I bought another Tikka and am canceling the first one that was delayed. **** the DOJ.

I have bought a rifle in December last year no issues

I have a Sig in jail right now so far no calls for delay. picking it up Thursday.

NickTheGreek
03-05-2014, 9:49 AM
I have bought a rifle in December last year no issues

I have a Sig in jail right now so far no calls for delay. picking it up Thursday.

Did you previously have a delay? Or are you just rubbing it in that DOJ isn't bothering you?

PJ205
03-05-2014, 10:05 AM
Did you previously have a delay? Or are you just rubbing it in that DOJ isn't bothering you?
The latter, it seems.

mmayer707
03-05-2014, 11:50 AM
So an update on me.

I bought a pistol on 2/4 and picked it up on 2/14 with no issues.
I bought a Tikka rifle that same day I picked up the pistol 2/14.
I bought Ruger rifle on 2/20.

On 2/21 the first rifle (Tikka) was delayed.
The Ruger rifle (which I bought last) never got delayed and I picked that up today 3/2. I got a copy of the DROS [APPROVED] letter in case I need it later (Calguns, I will gladly testify)

So I bought another Tikka and am canceling the first one that was delayed. **** the DOJ.

Wow, this should show you how flawed the system is. Unreal. :confused:

NickTheGreek
03-05-2014, 1:36 PM
Wow, this should show you how flawed the system is. Unreal. :confused:

Exactly.

PJ205
03-05-2014, 3:10 PM
What a joke this is. Ive been jumping through hoops, making calls, sending faxes... still no release. Never been convicted of any crime in my life, no tickets, any type of fee that has to do with the government is paid; I dont get it. Im just about ready to cancel the DROS and get my money back from the dealer then buy a gun sometime in the future.

Drivedabizness
03-05-2014, 3:19 PM
Hopefully the attorneys on this case will file a supplemental authority in this case with results of Peruta.

2A rights are no longer privileges in the 9th Circuit. It doesn't matter if Kamala & CO are incompetent or misbehaving - they cannot deprive law abiding citizens of their ability to keep and bear arms for self defense. Either turn down and have the justification or approve - within the minimal time necessary.

PJ205
03-06-2014, 7:42 AM
So pissed. I just got off the phone with the courthouse that I need to get a disposition from stating that I have never been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony before. CA DOJ put me on hold 15 days ago, today. Apparently they haven't even bothered to request the disposition yet. Quality work they're doing up there in Sacramento. I'm about to call them all day until I get ahold of someone and let them have it. It looks like I'm going to have to take the day off of work tomorrow to drive 2.5 hours to physically get a disposition and send it to them myself. What are the DROS fees even for? I'll post an update.

El Toro
03-06-2014, 7:58 AM
So pissed. I just got off the phone with the courthouse that I need to get a disposition from stating that I have never been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony before. CA DOJ put me on hold 15 days ago, today. Apparently they haven't even bothered to request the disposition yet. Quality work they're doing up there in Sacramento. I'm about to call them all day until I get ahold of someone and let them have it. It looks like I'm going to have to take the day off of work tomorrow to drive 2.5 hours to physically get a disposition and send it to them myself. What are the DROS fees even for? I'll post an update.

So youve never been in ttrouble with the law (charged or held) or never been convicted? Is this a case of mistaken identity? Did you put your SSN on your DROS? Just curious.

PJ205
03-06-2014, 8:29 AM
Arrested once for a misdemeanor (DUI-pot) in 2006, case was dismissed during pre-trial; the only time I have ever gotten in trouble. Faxed them paperwork showing it was a misdemeanor and that the case was dismissed, which I was told might work to have me cleared by DOJ employees. Apparently it didn't work so I called the courthouse to try to get a disposition sent to them, but they told me that the DOJ has to request it or I have to get it in person. I then asked her to pull the records to see if anything was requested so she put me on hold then came back and said nothing has. She then put me on hold again an checked with another person to check their system and files; again nothing... Was never requested. I left the CA DOJ a nice voicemail and am awaiting a call back. No other arrests, never institutionalized for mental health, only ticket I've ever gotten was failure to display current registration sticker by a ticket enforcer while my truck wa parked in the driveway a few years ago and that was quickly fixed and taken care of, no outstanding fees of any kind. Basically just being given the run around because it sounds like some people don't want to do their jobs.

Yes, I put my SSN on the DROS to avoid mistaken identity. My name isn't common and I'm a Jr. My dad was in the military for 30 years and was a base magistrate so I don't think I need to worry about them confusing us for eachother.

El Toro
03-06-2014, 8:42 AM
Well as much of a pain is it is now, your actions will probably clear it up for the future. Good Luck!

ke6guj
03-06-2014, 9:20 AM
Yes, I put my SSN on the DROS to avoid mistaken identity. My name isn't common and I'm a Jr. My dad was in the military for 30 years and was a base magistrate so I don't think I need to worry about them confusing us for eachother.you put your SSN on the 4473 form, not the DROS form. putting your SSN on the 4473 does you no good in CA and only opens you up to identity theft. Your SSN is never sent to CADOJ for any background check purposes.

PJ205
03-06-2014, 10:54 AM
Well as much of a pain is it is now, your actions will probably clear it up for the future. Good Luck!

Thanks! Much appreciated.

Audiojake
03-06-2014, 2:34 PM
I am solving my Problem permanently.

I am moving to Tempe Arizona at the end of this year. Taking my good tax revenue to a state that will appreciate it.

I am going to choke on all the freedom.

FU#$CK you California.

PJ205
03-07-2014, 10:08 AM
If you want something done then you have to get it done yourself. DOJ probably hates me, as I could tell from the call I received this morning that the lady returning my call was less than pleased that I called them out, but she pulled up my the file again and it showed that the delay is released. Picking up my Glock 23 today after work.

Paul S
03-07-2014, 3:47 PM
Great news...it sucks that CA DOJ is so screwed up.

BigRoachDaddy
03-08-2014, 3:18 PM
Went to pick up my glock 19 today... DOJ Delay letter... FML. Now I know it's for an arrest 15 yrs ago when I was in high school for PC 626.10- knife/dagger/ice pick on school campus. Charges dropped because the allegation was completely fabricated by a couple of other high school kids. Imagine that.
Called the DOJ phone number on the letter only to find out they no longer answer phone calls. So what exactly do I do from here? Should I obtain court disposition and take to the DOJ branch office in Fresno? Send it to Sacramento? Someone told me there is a form you have to fill out and take a "LiveScan" at the local PD, which requires a separate form.

ricksOe
03-11-2014, 5:33 PM
Got a delay notice from the DOJ.. debating if I should fork out the extra cash for the live scan even though I know I have no warrants.. open cases.. nor convictions.

1EasyTarget
03-11-2014, 9:19 PM
Okay, so what is the disposition of the lawsuit? Did the new law dispose of it somehow? Is it just typical legal system delays hoping all the plaintiffs die of old age before the case gets to a trial?

Inquiring minds want to know. :confused:

BigRoachDaddy
03-11-2014, 9:57 PM
Much love to an unnamed CalGunner... to remain nameless who I contacted and was gracious enough to respond to my emails. He walked me through my path to success. Now I just have to take time off to visit my local county courthouse to fight for my 2A and 14A rights! This guy inspired me to help others through this garbage. Anyone with a DOJ DELAY letter is welcome to contact me at doublerdesign *at gmail so we can share info and fight this together.

NickTheGreek
03-12-2014, 2:09 PM
You guys all took the hard way out. I returned my gun that was delayed and bought another one. Problem solved.

autox42
03-12-2014, 5:01 PM
I hate hearing about all of these delay letters, luckly enough for me I have purchased a few firearms over the past months and haven't gotten a dely letter *knock on wood* I don't have a spotless Past either DUI 4 years ago *sober since* and a pot ticket 7 years ago but had that expunged, numerous traffic tix.

it sucks to hear people have to go through that when they have spotless records

BigRoachDaddy
03-15-2014, 1:16 AM
Got another letter from doj yesterday. Someone with similar info has a stolen gun charge. Gotta get a live scan. FML.

NickTheGreek
03-15-2014, 9:37 PM
So an update on me.

I bought a pistol on 2/4 and picked it up on 2/14 with no issues.
I bought a Tikka rifle that same day I picked up the pistol 2/14.
I bought Ruger rifle on 2/20.

On 2/21 the first rifle (Tikka) was delayed.
The Ruger rifle (which I bought last) never got delayed and I picked that up today 3/2. I got a copy of the DROS [APPROVED] letter in case I need it later (Calguns, I will gladly testify)

So I bought another Tikka and am canceling the first one that was delayed.

[EDIT] I picked up my second purchased Tikka T3 the other day with no issues. The first one has been in jail for 30 days.

Audiojake
03-19-2014, 4:08 PM
UpDATE.

I picked up my GLock 22 today. California DOJ gave my FFL dealer the (undecided BS excuse). The FFL dealer decided I can take it home.

Major props to my local Gun store, for having the Balls to tell DOJ to screw off with their BS delay tactics.

Happy owner here.

xtremetib
03-22-2014, 4:38 PM
i'm so pissed and I am getting tired of these games the state plays

9 months ago delay on 2 lowers do the rat race get everything cleared up
90 days later pick up my lowers.
A week later go purchase a 9mm to what happens all good 10 days later pick it up.
In November purchase a .40 cal no issue's 10 days later pick it up.

On the march 12 I go in and purchase a SR45 as it drops off roster on 3/14
today (3/22) I go to pick it up and he says just got a delay letter an hour before pick up time.

I just don't get it can they not see all the other purchase's (like they don't keep records) this is so lame there has to an end to this madness.

End of my rant

low67vdubinnocal
03-22-2014, 9:23 PM
After I sent my cleared paperwork In end Of Dec. And had my Nov. Delay lifted I have had no problems at all. Did a revolver ppt In Feb And new semi auto hand Gun In March all went smooth. Wonder if its just back logged thats holding people up now .

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

Ag_Surfer
03-24-2014, 3:59 AM
Wow this BS is still going on... OH YA this is California I must be dreaming if I think things have changed. I was thinking about buying a 2nd handgun but after last years 6 mo. delay for a long gun I'm a little gun shy (bad pun). I better MAN UP and go for it.

mmayer707
03-24-2014, 6:39 AM
^ Just do it. There have been reports of people being delayed and then purchasing the same gun that is being delayed and having no problems. They then just return the one being delayed. The system is so f'd up it isn't even funny.

xtremetib
03-24-2014, 6:15 PM
I think it depends on who's desk it lands on.
I would bet there some Anti's working there that will go out of there way to
try and find ways to slow the process down and others that just do there job

If was not for the fact that I had to jump through hoops to locate a sr45 before it fell off the roster I would purchase another one and return

I will wait for the 30 days and pick up from dealer he is the same guy that I used on my last delay.
So I see no reason he would not release to me

Then I will go and get a The .357 I've been eyeing. See how they like that

low67vdubinnocal
03-24-2014, 8:52 PM
Don't you have to repay the fees if you cancel it ? If so I would be on my State elected person to find out why you can cancel one delay And go back And rebuy the same item And not have a delay except the Doj gets the extra fee.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

xtremetib
03-25-2014, 6:49 PM
Ok know I am getting real pissed the Doj sent me a letter saying I am on delay because the department has identified state or federal records matching my identifying information or a stolen firearm record that if confirmed would prohibit the purchase.

Ok lets rewind back in august I was on delay
went and got a live scan everything looked
called the doj they hinted towards a 242 battery charge that they needed more info to make sure it was not related to domestic violence.

It was not went friends house got in fight wife followed to stop me cops trumped up lots of other charges all dismissed except battery
but cops tried to charge me with corporal inj. on spouse was dismissed never
happened she even said never happened that she was not involved he accidently hit her when she was pulling me off so judge dismissed.

So I went and got a live scan no felony's a few misdemeanor's from teen day's
the battery case is the only serious misdemeanor.
no drugs no alcohol

Ok back on track so I went to court house had them fax the case info to the doj and 3 days later delay was lifted and I picked up my lowers

so now what do I do fill out the livescan form they sent how do I prove once and for all this has nothing to do with domestic violence.
As this is the only thing it could be

MURRIETA45
04-03-2014, 7:16 PM
Well I DROS'ed my 1st firearm since I got delayed (and subsequently released) last year. Lets hope this goes smoothly like it should.


Mark


.

Kid Stanislaus
04-05-2014, 5:28 PM
I am solving my Problem permanently.
I am moving to Tempe Arizona at the end of this year. Taking my good tax revenue to a state that will appreciate it.
I am going to choke on all the freedom. FU#$CK you California.

Me too, I'm blow'n outta Dodge next spring. SCREW this political pigstye.:mad:

xtremetib
04-10-2014, 6:56 PM
well after talking with a nice lady at the doj and getting another copy of the court records then faxing it with a copy of the delay letter

My sr45 is out of jail 3 days before the 30day undetermined

MURRIETA45
04-15-2014, 11:02 AM
Well I DROS'ed my 1st firearm since I got delayed (and subsequently released) last year. Lets hope this goes smoothly like it should.



UPDATE: I was able to pick up my firearm without an issue. Looks like they got their end taken care of.


Mark


.

ricksOe
04-22-2014, 1:55 PM
So lemme get this straight... some of you guys were delayed like myself and the DOJ sent a letter stating something about a stolen firearm.? Funny that I got the same letter.. I ended up with my gun but its kinda odd we all have "stolen firearms" on our DOJ letters.

kemasa
04-22-2014, 3:51 PM
Most likely it is just a form letter which covers all of the possible issues.

ricksOe
04-22-2014, 11:29 PM
No its not broad at all.. its very specific and I wish I would have kept mines but once I obtained my G17 I just tossed it in the trash.. it stated that there is an issue with a stolen firearm and could be the reason for a prohibited ban.

Ag_Surfer
05-13-2014, 1:12 PM
Wow this BS is still going on... OH YA this is California I must be dreaming if I think things have changed. I was thinking about buying a 2nd handgun but after last years 6 mo. delay for a long gun I'm a little gun shy (bad pun). I better MAN UP and go for it.

I just picked up Handgun # 2. 10 days to the minute, even the salesman was laughing at that :rofl2: I told him see him in 30.

Southwest Chuck
05-13-2014, 3:19 PM
See him in 20 and pick up in 30 ! :thumbsup:

Kid Stanislaus
05-14-2014, 6:09 PM
I am solving my Problem permanently.
I am moving to Tempe Arizona at the end of this year. Taking my good tax revenue to a state that will appreciate it.
I am going to choke on all the freedom.
FU#$CK you California.

I'm pull'n up stakes and moving to southern Oregon next year myself. I've live in CA all my life and watched it slowly degenerate, from a decent place to live into a political cesspool.:mad:

Kid Stanislaus
05-14-2014, 6:12 PM
Got another letter from doj yesterday. Someone with similar info has a stolen gun charge. Gotta get a live scan. FML.

Would that "similar info" be that you both walk upright and breathe oxygen?:rolleyes:

Hoooper
05-15-2014, 7:12 AM
since when is having a gun stolen a prohibiting offense?

9M62
05-15-2014, 7:29 AM
Is the DROS process automatic, or is each DROS reviewed by an analyst at the DOJ?

I'd imagine the ones that pop up "flags" are reviewed by analyst's, and then they decide whether or not to send a delay letter. Am I correct?

Librarian
05-15-2014, 10:48 AM
Is the DROS process automatic, or is each DROS reviewed by an analyst at the DOJ?

I'd imagine the ones that pop up "flags" are reviewed by analyst's, and then they decide whether or not to send a delay letter. Am I correct?

About 20% are automatic approvals. The rest are individually reviewed. See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=924856

NannyState
06-26-2014, 9:22 AM
I bought a handgun at Turner's, and two rifles from Big 5, all within the same week. Both rifles had a delay put on them but the handgun went through and I picked it up yesterday.

I'm not sure what to do now, maybe just ask for my money back and call it a day. I really don't have the patience for this BS.

madoka
07-03-2014, 10:39 AM
Well it's been 4 weeks since my lawyer sent the FACTS to the Cal. DOJ (twice) and they have totally ignored us. No answer, no comment, nothing...crickets.

Your tax dollars at work.

And the politician's solution to this problem is more government.

Toy4Rick
07-03-2014, 6:35 PM
Speeding ticket 20 years ago and my DROS went straight through and picked up my S&W 686 in 10 days. I asked my FFL (retired ATF) if they were seeing my DOJ delays and he said no

My 26 year old son started his first DROS today, squeaky clean record, doesn't get any cleaner, let's see how it goes for him

Sorry to hear about all the hassles
Rick

Southwest Chuck
07-03-2014, 6:47 PM
Well it's been 4 weeks since my lawyer sent the FACTS to the Cal. DOJ (twice) and they have totally ignored us. No answer, no comment, nothing...crickets.


It's called ...... giving you and your attorney, along with the horse you both road in on, "the bird" :chris:

Except for certain categories, I think we need to get rid of most of the "qualified immunity gov. employees enjoy. They might just start to take their jobs seriously.

low67vdubinnocal
07-17-2014, 4:43 PM
Update (7/17/14 ): CA DOJ tells me (in their own obfuscated lingo) I need to prove my innocence. The "crime" for which they denied me was an arrest (no charges ever filed). They are telling my attorney that I have to prove the charges were dropped. I contacted the District Court (another state) and they told me they don't keep records of cases that were never prosecuted. So I cannot prove innocence of a crime never committed.

My lawyer is going to begin getting a little more firm now. But this is ridiculous.

I'll post back when I know more.

Can't you get a copy Of the Court records ? I got my record Of charges dropped from Queens NY. For $10 faxed it In too DOJ And had my delay lifted a couple hours later. No Lawyer involved.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

low67vdubinnocal
07-17-2014, 5:04 PM
Maybe just ask for a letter from the Court or PD. In the State you were snagged In. I just explaned to the Court Clerk when I called I was trying to buy a target rifle for Christmas And the Clerk was super helpful getting the letter back In a week after getting the money order.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

JDay
07-17-2014, 5:53 PM
California is not free America, comrade.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

low67vdubinnocal
07-18-2014, 11:24 AM
Did you try faxing that Court paper In ?

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

OleCuss
07-18-2014, 7:56 PM
I'm glad you have a good lawyer on the case and are being appropriately aggressive.

SkyHawk
07-18-2014, 9:30 PM
Kevster, no matter what else you have going with your attorney, you need to file a NICS appeal asap. You can do it online, free, and no fingerprints required. That should help get things cleared up with the FBI. Also apply for a VAF so the FBI can keep records of your appeal results. Send in whatever docs you have showing you were never charged when you file the NICS appeal - the online form lets you upload them. The FBI should send back a document that says you are eligible to purchase and own firearms and an embossed certificate of successful appeal. It can take 60 days.

I'm on my iPad right now or I would get you more info, but just Google "NICS appeal" and "NICS VAF" for the links.

JoeyJ
08-22-2014, 12:14 PM
Sorry but I just have to rant for a bit.
I hit my 1 month delay yesterday and another today for a second purchase.

My 1st firearm purchase since moving to CA was July 2012, that took 8 days. Dec 31st 2012 I made another purchase (post Sandy Hook) and purchased another about a month later just to test the delay system. They were both delayed, hmmmm what changed in the time period between July 2012 and Dec 31st 2012? VERY telling. The Dec 31st was released 11 weeks later and the 3rd purchase the next day for about a 7 week delay. Obviously I had no deniable issues. During this delay I was able to speak to a few employees at DOJ and was told that their guidelines had been expanded (Kamala Harris stroke of a pen) and they were now required to investigate any blip on a record and I do have a few going back to the early 70s but no prosecutions, convictions of any kind.

We (veterans) weren't well treated during Viet Nam by some fellow citizens or law enforcement. I spent one weekend in jail simply because I was carrying a Buck folding knife in the belt sheath. I had just finished cleaning some rabbits and quickly ran to Walgreens to pick up some pictures. I was chased down by 2 detectives and literally run off the road on a 3 wheel Harley trike within sight of my house. They wouldn't even allow me to push the trike handcuffed to my driveway, lol Yes, I am a biker too, double whammy, lol. Thankfully the Judge was a veteran and immediately dismissed the case and read the detective the riot act in open court. The charge was unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon in order to be armed. Nice, huh? lol. Different time for sure but these things still happen everyday and follow us.

So now here I am wondering what exactly did the 30 day bill do to help matters? My FFL, Sportsman's Supply in San Jose will not release my firearms and will charge me a re-stocking fee if I cancel my purchases, which I do not intend to do. So what has this bill done to help us again? How about the DOJ? Has it made it faster/better for them to do their job? Obviously nothing and no to both.

Why is/was there no effort to come up with a legal document/process from gun rights groups/representatives to help provide some type of protection to the FFL. A live scan supported legal document that puts all of the responsibility on the purchaser? Unless I had been arrested/convicted of a deniable offence since my last approval it would be clear enough. A supporting live scan would clearly support that also. Sure we can sue all we want and I believe I am covered in the existing suit but we also need to look at ways to provide real solutions in these types of cases. We are letting them win on this one and it pains me to say I am looking for an exit. I've fought the good fight here both financially and as a volunteer but I would rather continue to help fight from another State where I can choose what legal firearms are best suited for MY needs and to also be able to obtain ammo and accessories to support those needs.

Good luck to those of you new to the delay process. The blame for these excessive delays clearly lies with Kamela Harris, her phone and her pen. Hopefully this will be proven out in court eventually but these tactics will continue for as long as they hold the majority in this State but I fear it will need to collapse before there is any real change here. Spending our money to defend the non stop feel good do nothing bills is of no concern to ideologues and this State is rife with them.

Thanks for letting me rant. Time for woods/camping recovery treatment, lol
Joey

M14 Junkie
08-23-2014, 5:50 PM
Sorry for your hassles dude but, your post is almost impossible to read all in one paragraph. Frankly, I gave up after a few sentences.

Break up your posts by separating after 3 or 4 sentences. That makes them a whole bunch easier on the eyes to read.

JoeyJ
08-23-2014, 7:06 PM
Sorry for your hassles dude but, your post is almost impossible to read all in one paragraph. Frankly, I gave up after a few sentences.

Break up your posts by separating after 3 or 4 sentences. That makes them a whole bunch easier on the eyes to read.


Thanks for the input but it was just a rant/venting and done in a hurry. The more time I take with a post the more times I have to re-login with this site and half the time you all get lucky and I lose it all and give up, lol.

NannyState
09-11-2014, 9:29 PM
I am amazed that TPTB on this forum are so ineffective regarding the unethical strong arm delays (tactics) performed by the California DOJ. I read a lot of tough talk regarding lawsuits and whatnot. I've even received a couple emails from some of you regarding my situation. With all the ads (supporters) on this website you would think we would be farther along, but yet every year it gets worse.

My old man always told me to follow the money and you will get to the root of the problem, and I'm sure this is the case here too.

Someone is making money from all the delays and unfulfilled promises and is laughing all the way to the bank, IMHO.

Sorry for the rant but nothing ever happens and I'm getting frustrated.

realgreenfire
09-21-2014, 4:32 PM
is there any update of the status on the lawsuit that was filled in regards to the delay bs that they are doing??

-sorry but there isnt time in life to read the 44 pages of commentary..

nobody_special
10-24-2014, 9:05 PM
The lawsuit was apparently dismissed early this year, I assume because the plaintiff's guns were released. I searched but didn't see any announcement or discussion of the dismissal.

Filed: 1/21/2014, Entered: None Court Filing
MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/21/2014: Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 6 and FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety. CASE CLOSED. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

PACER 6 Filed: 1/20/2014, Entered: None
NOTICE of VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL by The Calguns Foundation, Inc.. (Otten, Victor) (Entered: 01/20/2014)

SkyHawk
10-25-2014, 10:38 AM
The lawsuit was apparently dismissed early this year, I assume because the plaintiff's guns were released. I searched but didn't see any announcement or discussion of the dismissal.

Appeal for reinstatement was filed in Sept 2014 in the Schoepf, et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al case. The opening post of this thread cites two cases. Which are you referring to?

http://ottenlawpc.com/otten-law-pc-files-appeal-on-behalf-of-the-calguns-foundation-seven-californians-against-attorney-general-kamala-harris-doj-over-gun-delays/

Because the lawsuit forced the DOJ to release the holds that it had on the firearms of the seven plaintiffs prior to hearing the writ, Superior Court Judge Carlos A. Cabrera denied the case on the ground that it was “moot”. In doing so, the Judge denied ruling on the deprivation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and there was no consequence to the DOJ for failing to proceed as required by law. Accordingly, we have asked the Court of Appeal to remedy the Judge’s mistake.

nobody_special
10-25-2014, 11:47 AM
I was referring to the other case, Owen v. Lindley. So it looks like both were dismissed.