PDA

View Full Version : Shipping guns into CA after Jan 1st.


odesskiy
12-08-2007, 7:27 AM
So, I've been seeing hints of the new law in regards to out-of-state shipments of firearms into California. Can someone please explain, what is going to be different.

Overkill
12-08-2007, 7:53 AM
I haven't heard anything. Where did you hear this information?

dustoff31
12-08-2007, 8:32 AM
I believe this has been mentioned a couple of times. From what I understand, out of state dealers must obtain a "control" or log number from CA DOJ in order to ship into CA. I thought someone said it didn't take effect until later ing the year though.

odesskiy
12-08-2007, 8:33 AM
Yes, I was referring to that "control number" stuff.

dustoff31
12-08-2007, 8:37 AM
As I understand it, the only difference from current practice is getting the number. The big question is how willing out of state dealers are to play DOJs game.

odesskiy
12-08-2007, 8:40 AM
As I understand it, the only difference from current practice is getting the number. The big question is how willing out of state dealers are to play DOJs game.

Will it apply only to out-of-state FFL's or private parties as well? I doubt too many people will want to put up with this stupid bull****...

dustoff31
12-08-2007, 8:43 AM
Will it apply only to out-of-state FFL's or private parties as well? I doubt too many people will want to put up with this stupid bull****...

Not sure about private parties. I'm trying to find the thread where this was discussed. 10% firearms was talking about it a couple of days ago.


EDIT: Well, this is from back in March....


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=52155&highlight=%22DOJ+control+number%22

hoffmang
12-08-2007, 10:08 AM
This requirement will not take effect without enabling regulations being published by DOJ BoF. When the initial draft of the regulations are available for comment, you'll see it prominently on Calguns and we'll all want to submit comments.

-Gene

EOD Guy
12-09-2007, 5:40 AM
This requirement will not take effect without enabling regulations being published by DOJ BoF. When the initial draft of the regulations are available for comment, you'll see it prominently on Calguns and we'll all want to submit comments.

-Gene

They are already in the Penal Code and have been for a while. It only applies to dealer shipments. Shipments of C&R rifles and shotguns over 50 years old are exempt from the requirement.

odesskiy
12-09-2007, 9:46 AM
Thanks, guys...

Addax
12-09-2007, 1:40 PM
This requirement will not take effect without enabling regulations being published by DOJ BoF. When the initial draft of the regulations are available for comment, you'll see it prominently on Calguns and we'll all want to submit comments.

-Gene

Gene,

Is there a chance that this requirement can be squashed?

Will DOJ-BOF outline how long the approval process will take, what is involved (i.e. a website with a 24 hour response?).

Will this regulation expose what individual customers are purchasing vs. the current DROS system.

hoffmang
12-09-2007, 1:59 PM
They are already in the Penal Code and have been for a while. It only applies to dealer shipments. Shipments of C&R rifles and shotguns over 50 years old are exempt from the requirement.

EOD,

DOJ BoF will have to create a process. If process is complex at all, they have to create implementing regulations and go through the entire OAL process.

There is no specific way to kill this, but it may end up not being something BoF ends up really enacting like the requirement to send your C&R license to Sacramento.

-Gene

bwiese
12-09-2007, 2:00 PM
Addax,

It's not an "approval process".

The transaction can't be killed due to opinions, "we think this is a bad gun", etc. I think there likely will be no gun info conveyed.

It's really just an assignment of ID#s.

This will take a long time for DOJ to implement - it involves technology.

And yes, we have some control thru regulatory/comment/OAL process to ensure that the letter of the law is the only thing that becomes active.

Addax
12-09-2007, 2:12 PM
Thanks Bill,

So the Verification ID# is not a DOJ approval, but more like a tracking system for inbound firearm shipments which the DOJ will assign a verification# to an out of state ffl dealer who is going to ship a rifle to a ffl dealer here in CA, which DOJ cannot decline (as long as the firearms are legal, OLL etc.), correct?

C&R's are excluded from this process?

For this system to be implemented, it will cost the state allot of $$ even if using off the shelf technology.



Addax,

It's not an "approval process".

The transaction can't be killed due to opinions, "we think this is a bad gun", etc. I think there likely will be no gun info conveyed.

It's really just an assignment of ID#s.

This will take a long time for DOJ to implement - it involves technology.

And yes, we have some control thru regulatory/comment/OAL process to ensure that the letter of the law is the only thing that becomes active.

Addax
12-09-2007, 2:17 PM
This is supposed to go into effect July 3, 2008 from what I have read. so the DOJ has approx. 7 months to gain legal opinions, test and evaluate a system, implement a working solution.. I have clients that implement logistics tracking systems that take more than 12 months in testing and evaluation before implementation... I just wonder how the heck DOJ is going to do all of this now..

bwiese
12-09-2007, 2:29 PM
This is supposed to go into effect July 3, 2008 from what I have read. so the DOJ has approx. 7 months to gain legal opinions, test and evaluate a system, implement a working solution.. I have clients that implement logistics tracking systems that take more than 12 months in testing and evaluation before implementation... I just wonder how the heck DOJ is going to do all of this now..


Yes, and I wonder if the DOJ BOF has the IT skills to do this.

As I heard it, they were actually gonna hire out the old AW stuff back in 1999/2000 for 'www.regagun.org' website to an overseas (Asia) IT contractor until someone raised a stink about US gunlaws benefitting foreign trade, US jobs etc. (Approximate story, probably partially misremembered in my clulttered little brain.)

If they hire out the job they will have to get bids, ensure that minority/women/veteran contractors have fair access to bidding process, etc. That alone is a real *****.

There will need to be test cycles.

There will need to be increased staffing at startup to deal with early bugs/failures.

But one fast way may involve borrowing the ATF's E-Z Check FFL validation system. Ping both sides of the transaction off it for validation, and format a transaction ID number from a combination of unique (shorter) hash code derived from the ATF FFL IDs, and include a date/time field and a sequence # field (in case more than one transaction in a given day occurred btwn two FFLs.)

Voila - you now have a 'transaction number' built from a set of known valid information and that can readily work within DOJ's DROS system. It doesn't cause DOJ much trouble, doesn't cause us or FFLs much trouble, and still accomplishes legislative goal that guns aren't going to non-FFLs.

Addax
12-09-2007, 2:40 PM
A system to regulate and eliminate guns going to non ffl's is something I support. Better to make sure you do things legally vs. playing around with the system like some idiots would and break the law.

Thanks for the info. Bill.

Regards,
Chris

Yes, and I wonder if the DOJ BOF has the IT skills to do this.

As I heard it, they were actually gonna hire out the old AW stuff back in 1999/2000 for 'www.regagun.org' website to an overseas (Asia) IT contractor until someone raised a stink about US gunlaws benefitting foreign trade, US jobs etc. (Approximate story, probably partially misremembered in my clulttered little brain.)

If they hire out the job they will have to get bids, ensure that minority/women/veteran contractors have fair access to bidding process, etc. That alone is a real *****.

There will need to be test cycles.

There will need to be increased staffing at startup to deal with early bugs/failures.

But one fast way may involve borrowing the ATF's E-Z Check FFL validation system. Ping both sides of the transaction off it for validation, and format a transaction ID number from a combination of unique (shorter) hash code derived from the ATF FFL IDs, and include a date/time field and a sequence # field (in case more than one transaction in a given day occurred btwn two FFLs.)

Voila - you now have a 'transaction number' built from a set of known valid information and that can readily work within DOJ's DROS system. It doesn't cause DOJ much trouble, doesn't cause us or FFLs much trouble, and still accomplishes legislative goal that guns aren't going to non-FFLs.

hoffmang
12-09-2007, 5:59 PM
What I find amusing is how little a system like this will do. It has to be open to anyone to register (since private out of state citizens can ship firearms to California FFLs). It does after the fact prove that the receiver is an FFL, but the 4473 seems to do that just fine. If a CA FFL gets a shipment without the receipt for the FFL check, what is to stop him from going onto the website and creating a new receipt by entering his own details?

Is there some class of misbehavior that I'm missing?

-Gene

artherd
12-09-2007, 10:34 PM
This is just about getting somebody a fat new contract.

daves100
12-10-2007, 1:57 PM
AB 2521 (Stats. 2006, ch. 784) (Jones)
C Establishes the Centralized List of Exempted Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs)
(PC § 12072) as of January 1, 2008.
C As of July 1, 2008, requires both in-state and out of state FFLs to obtain approval (a unique
verification number) from the California Department of Justice (DOJ) prior to shipping firearms
to any California FFL (PC § 12072). A subsequent DOJ Information Bulletin will be forwarded
regarding this new law.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf page 6 of 55

Addax
12-10-2007, 2:22 PM
My understanding in speaking with one of my ffl dealers about this is that a private citizen will not be able to ship a rifle to a ffl dealer unless they use another ffl dealer with the verification# on the packing slip and a print out of the verification.

If a private citizen were to ship a firearm to California, and a ffl dealer received their only recourse would be to ship it the firearm back asap or to possibly obtain a verification# themselves stating they have received a firearm from a non ffl dealer, but that part is unclear...

The more I think about this, the more I start to question why another system or layer is required, other than to regulate the flow of firearms coming into the state in a legally sanctioned way.

In the grand scheme of things it does not change much, unless the DOJ is going to wait or prolong the amount of time before punching out a verification# to an out of state dealer before they can ship here... Then the DOJ would really be able to regulate the legitimate and legal flow of firearms from dealer to dealer.

It is not against Federal Law for a private citizen to ship to a ffl, but if the state law is more stringent than the Federal Law, my understanding is that state law can overrule federal law in these matters??

BillCA
12-10-2007, 2:46 PM
In the grand scheme of things it does not change much, unless the DOJ is going to wait or prolong the amount of time before punching out a verification# to an out of state dealer before they can ship here... Then the DOJ would really be able to regulate the legitimate and legal flow of firearms from dealer to dealer.
The only thing it really does is add another layer of bureaucracy to the job of the FFL. Just one more thing for him to screw up on so they can close his business down.

hoffmang
12-10-2007, 2:57 PM
Here are the actual guts of the new requirement in the Penal Code:


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


Non licensees can still send firearms to licensees in California.

DOJ shall issue the receipt number if the CA FFL is valid.

What I don't get is what this could possibly stop...

-Gene

Addax
12-10-2007, 3:55 PM
What I don't get is what this could possibly stop...

-Gene

Maybe the DOJ thinks this will be a way for them to stop someone from shipping a handgun that is not on the approved list into California? Maybe even Non listed rifles?

In my line of work, whenever a customer wants a ticketing/tracking system installed internally for their own use, it is because they cannot truly figure out how many assets they currently have in their environment (talking about companies with 10,000 or more people) and just pinging the network is not always accurate, so we have customers today spending allot of $$ to help them keep track of their own assets. So with DOJ assigning a Verification# it is a means by which they can track exactly what is comming into the state.

The next question should be, is this information going to also be used to see who is purchasing that specific firearm under the provided verification#? Will the Dros form (electronic, written or both) eventually require this number be added to it?

If so, then the DOJ will also now be able to track who owns these firearms..

Gene or Bill, any thoughts on this? I don't want to sound too alarmist or anything.

Addax
12-10-2007, 3:58 PM
I think it states that a licensed individual can apply for the verification#..
Are they referring to FFL holder or drivers license holder (party sending firearm to California)?

hoffmang
12-10-2007, 4:04 PM
DOJ is not going to be able to make a determination about what is in a shipment - only that a shipment is going to a California registered FFL.

That brings me to thinking I may have figured out what they are trying to stop. One could get an 01 FFL and never register with California in violation of state law. If one didn't do much business, one could avoid all the CA laws while out of state FFL's would just take a copy of your FFL. You'd be violating all sorts of California laws but would not be violating federal law. I wonder if there has been a rash of that sort of behavior.

The funny thing of course is that C&Rs are still exempt and private out of state parties don't need to comply either on the face of the Penal Code.

-Gene

Addax
12-10-2007, 5:49 PM
Just going through my current experience with applying for a ffl, you have to apply for the COE with the state, and once you receive your ffl license, the DOJ requires that you also register on the list of authorized dealers.

Since I am still awaiting my COE approval before submitting my ffl application to ATF, I am not sure if the DOJ goes through any extra steps in verifying an ffl dealer after they receive their license from ATF to make sure that that person actually registers with the DOJ to be added to the list of authorized dealers.

So Gene, you may have hit the nail on the head, or maybe part of it, and I only say this, since I thought the DOJ would want to know what make and model of firearm(s) are being shipped? Maybe I mis-understood this part?





DOJ is not going to be able to make a determination about what is in a shipment - only that a shipment is going to a California registered FFL.

That brings me to thinking I may have figured out what they are trying to stop. One could get an 01 FFL and never register with California in violation of state law. If one didn't do much business, one could avoid all the CA laws while out of state FFL's would just take a copy of your FFL. You'd be violating all sorts of California laws but would not be violating federal law. I wonder if there has been a rash of that sort of behavior.

The funny thing of course is that C&Rs are still exempt and private out of state parties don't need to comply either on the face of the Penal Code.

-Gene

hoffmang
12-10-2007, 10:26 PM
I see no place in the Penal Code as amended that allows or requires the out of state FFL to say anything about the firearm except that it's not an SBS, SBR, Machingun or AW. All I see is an address/recipient verification.

Addax: If you were ignoring California, would ATF issue you an 01 or 07 FFL with no California intervention?

-Gene

xenophobe
12-11-2007, 12:53 AM
DOJ is not going to be able to make a determination about what is in a shipment - only that a shipment is going to a California registered FFL.

We're not sure of that.

Every DROS has a number of firearms being transferred identified on it. In heated debates I've discussed this before. According to DOJ, you're not allowed to add (but you may remove) long arms from this DROS transaction once it has been submitted.

Please show me where in the regulatory mess this numerical value is allowed within the DROS itself and the rules governing it as a limitation is stated.

The DOJ may see fit that approved handguns must be noted, as well as providing identifying long gun information to receive a transaction number prior to shipment. It is compulsory that they provide this number, however there is no time limit given... so perhaps this may be added into regulation, or integrated into the internet appliance that will issue such a number. Will it require manpower to verify FFL and Central List status?

At this point we have no idea how this law will be implemented. Your view is unrealistically optimistic, IMO.

hoffmang
12-11-2007, 11:24 AM
Xeno,

DOJ can't exceed their authority under the Penal Code without creating an underground regulation. If they do hold a new regulatory process, we'll be able to point out that there is no requirement in the Penal Code that enables DOJ to monitor which firearms are being imported.

-Gene

bwiese
12-11-2007, 11:27 AM
DOJ can't exceed their authority under the Penal Code without creating an underground regulation. If they do hold a new regulatory process, we'll be able to point out that there is no requirement in the Penal Code that enables DOJ to monitor which firearms are being imported.

Correct, the law treats the transaction as a complete entity. The law is just designed to see that the parties to transaction are valid.

Further checks are redundant - as a licensed FFL dealer in CA, he cannot illegally sell illegal firearms - and any such activity would show up in an audit.

xenophobe
12-11-2007, 1:46 PM
Xeno,

DOJ can't exceed their authority under the Penal Code without creating an underground regulation. If they do hold a new regulatory process, we'll be able to point out that there is no requirement in the Penal Code that enables DOJ to monitor which firearms are being imported.

-Gene

True, but the DOJ states that it is so, dealers follow their word, and hence, if you start a long gun transaction DROS for 1 long gun or 1 handgun, you cannot add a long gun at the time of dealer delivery without starting a new DROS and new 10 day waiting period. There is no law or regulation that supports this. However the DOJ states this as fact and most dealers will not contest this.

Where is this codified? Where is it stated that you must include the quantity of firearms must be stated on the DROS? It's not. It still happens.

All the DOJ has to do is include fields for firearms information in the form for obtaining permission for interstate commerce, and dealers will put that information in. It's as simple as that.

EDIT: The DOJ could also state in proposed regulation that this is also to make sure that illegal firearms (not on the roster, banned by name or feature, etc...) are not shipped either... Of course, that's why the comment process exists, and with mud in their face from their last attempt they might not try it, but you can never be sure.

Until we see proposed regulation, this thread is nothing but conjecture...

xenophobe
12-11-2007, 7:40 PM
Oh, and I almost forgot... of course you know how the system works. State passes law, agency forms regulations to apply the law, submit to OAL, comment/reply/comment/approval, and then this is the tricky part... After regulation submission and approval, DOJ contracts a company with their specific guidelines on what they would like this form submission to require, AFTER the fact. Therein lies the problem, IMO.

bwiese
12-11-2007, 8:43 PM
Oh, and I almost forgot... of course you know how the system works. State passes law, agency forms regulations to apply the law, submit to OAL, comment/reply/comment/approval, and then this is the tricky part... After regulation submission and approval, DOJ contracts a company with their specific guidelines on what they would like this form submission to require, AFTER the fact. Therein lies the problem, IMO.

If the DOJ starts doing stuff with the programming that goes beyond this, we can go to OAL and file compaint about submarine regulation.

I think that path was illuminated (and proof OAL takes serious claims seriously) when Gene Hoffman got the "Important Notices" pulled off DOJ website this summer - they were staying there despite the regulation not being filed and were having a squeching effect.

hoffmang
12-11-2007, 9:35 PM
Xeno,

There are quite a few current "underground regulations" of which the DROS item you mention is one. I think that we've built a decent reputation with OAL and as long as we choose to challenge items wisely at OAL, I think we can keep BoF in line on regulations or underground regulations. I don't think the DROS issue is large enough to use our goodwill, but the types of things around the incoming receipts you are speculating about are clearly not within BoF's jurisdiction.

BTW: Since you're just pulling your worries out of your behind, I'll pull my optimism out of mine and posit that this may become as implemented as the requirement to send C&R licenses to Sacramento. It's in the Penal Code but they've done NOTHING with it ever.

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
12-11-2007, 10:31 PM
And I therefore pessimistically conclude that since FFL-03s haven’t been incorporated into the centralized list, licensed collectors won’t be granted unique authorization numbers and thus will no longer be legally able to import eligible firearms. ;)

hoffmang
12-11-2007, 10:35 PM
And I therefore pessimistically conclude that since FFL-03s haven’t been incorporated into the centralized list, licensed collectors won’t be granted unique authorization numbers and thus will no longer be legally able to import eligible firearms. ;)

C&R's are exempt by nature of not being called out in the Penal Code quoted above.

-Gene

scoutpup99
12-11-2007, 11:00 PM
That brings me to thinking I may have figured out what they are trying to stop. One could get an 01 FFL and never register with California in violation of state law. If one didn't do much business, one could avoid all the CA laws while out of state FFL's would just take a copy of your FFL. You'd be violating all sorts of California laws but would not be violating federal law. I wonder if there has been a rash of that sort of behavior.

-Gene

Gene,
When you are issued a 01 FFL you have 30 days to provide a copy of all state and local licenses to the ATF. If they don't get the info they will revoke the 01 FFL immediately. I almost had my FFL revoked because the DOJ took 6 weeks to get me all of my licenses. This new law is just an attempt to create a burden on lawful interstate commerce.

Daniel

hoffmang
12-11-2007, 11:28 PM
Scout,

That was the fact I had an inkling about but couldn't remember. So that brings us back to this law having no actual purpose that I can divine at all.

-Gene

EOD Guy
12-12-2007, 6:45 AM
And I therefore pessimistically conclude that since FFL-03s haven’t been incorporated into the centralized list, licensed collectors won’t be granted unique authorization numbers and thus will no longer be legally able to import eligible firearms. ;)

They are already exempted from the requirement to obtain authorization numbers for C&R rifles and shotguns over 50 years old. So nothing changes there.

M. D. Van Norman
12-12-2007, 11:52 AM
I hope you’re right. Our respective pessimism and optimism gauges are calibrated differently, but I was wrong about the expirations of approved handguns. :)

xenophobe
12-12-2007, 10:17 PM
I think that path was illuminated (and proof OAL takes serious claims seriously) when Gene Hoffman got the "Important Notices" pulled off DOJ website this summer - they were staying there despite the regulation not being filed and were having a squeching effect.

There are quite a few current "underground regulations" of which the DROS item you mention is one. I think that we've built a decent reputation with OAL and as long as we choose to challenge items wisely at OAL, I think we can keep BoF in line on regulations or underground regulations. I don't think the DROS issue is large enough to use our goodwill, but the types of things around the incoming receipts you are speculating about are clearly not within BoF's jurisdiction.

BTW: Since you're just pulling your worries out of your behind, I'll pull my optimism out of mine and posit that this may become as implemented as the requirement to send C&R licenses to Sacramento. It's in the Penal Code but they've done NOTHING with it ever.


"Great kid, don't get cocky..."

I'm sorry, but a win against a glaringly apparent underground regulation that can easily be proven by contrast against original statements and adopted regulation is much easier than showing that any newly proposed regulation without such history is doing the same.

You do realize the OAL will give a regulatory agency more leeway in adopting new regulation than dramatically altering existing one?

So, perhaps you should stop patting yourself on the back long enough to realize that everything won't necessarily be a slam dunk in your court before the other team has stepped foot in the arena.

hoffmang
12-12-2007, 10:40 PM
Xeno,

You're basically proposing that BoF is not constrained by the actual law as passed at all. With that as the hypothesis you can create most any downside case you'd like. Heck - they could just say that they'll never grant a receipt for any import of any gun ever. Per your logic that's well within their purview.

-Gene

bwiese
12-12-2007, 10:50 PM
Xeno,

I don't think DOJ BoF is very much emotionally invested in this. As long as some IDs get generated reflecting valid FFLs, I think it may remain drama-free.

xenophobe
12-12-2007, 11:26 PM
I'm just saying that we have no clue how this will be implemented.

Valid questions to the DOJ:
Will this be automatic, or will the application need to be processed?
If it needs to be manually verified or processed, will there be any delay?

In no specific terms does it imply instant approval or denial. It does imply that the shipper must first receive confirmation of application and approval or denial. If that is indeed the case, there will be an acceptable time limit... of how many days?

If the DOJ *does* slip in make/model/serial number or ask for quantity of firearms being shipped, or whether any handgun is on the roster, it will be done AFTER any regulations have been passed and this detail in the internet application will not be in the regulations. Yes, I know anything we don't like can be contested.

The DOJ will be allowed a wider path in determining the regulations that govern this law than they would with their previous attempt at rewriting an existing regulation.

Those are my concerns.

hoffmang
12-12-2007, 11:59 PM
But if they don't ask for make/model/serial number in the regs and then require it on the form, that is the quintessential definition of an Underground Rulemaking...

-Gene

dixieD
12-13-2007, 5:33 AM
As I understand it, the only difference from current practice is getting the number. The big question is how willing out of state dealers are to play DOJs game.

Is this something that can potentially affect CMP shipments of Garands to Kali?

Doug

EOD Guy
12-13-2007, 6:39 AM
Is this something that can potentially affect CMP shipments of Garands to Kali?

Doug


No. Those shipments are neither to nor from a licensed dealer.