PDA

View Full Version : delete


rad1107
11-06-2013, 2:04 PM
delete

teetsjones
11-06-2013, 2:10 PM
I think more details are needed to make a fair appraisal. IIRC AB500 states the FFL MAY release a firearm after 30 days if DOJ can not make a determination. The may, is the key word.

fizux
11-06-2013, 2:15 PM
It would be theft if the LGS acted like the owner of the firearm (sold it to someone else, gave it away, took it camping, etc.), but right now the LGS is acting like an escrow agent. If anything looks hinky, escrow doesn't close, but the escrow agent isn't guilty of a crime (unless, of course, the escrow agent went to Bahamas with the funds, in which case that is your cause of hinkiness).

KABA556
11-06-2013, 2:24 PM
My first thought would be to have a frank conversation with the man in question, or send him a letter [certified mail, return receipt requested] stating that he can make the situation right by immediately releasing the weapon to your custody and that failure to release the weapon in a timely fashion will result in a complaint to the state attorney general, the filing of criminal charges, and litigation.


Consumer complaints with the state attorney general [here in Ohio] have always worked out well for me.

Off the Roster
11-06-2013, 2:52 PM
take it up with the DOJ, the LGS is just following law. a lot of people "owned" ruger sr22s (in jail) when they went off roster.

RickD427
11-06-2013, 3:27 PM
What would be the likelihood of getting a police officer to file a citizenís arrest report on a gun shop manager/owner for felony grand theft (excess $400.00) for refusing to release a gun per AB500 on 1/2/2014? What could the repercussions be? Any legal minds out there want to offer input.

The chances are just about zero.

Please remember that felony grand theft requires the wrongful intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Simply retaining the property of another, where there is a basis to do so, is not grand theft.

I would strongly suspect that the gun shop manager would articulate a lawful reason for not releasing the firearm (like an incomplete DROS check).

Off the Roster
11-06-2013, 3:36 PM
Not looking to be an *** about this looking for open discussion or brain storming. The FFL becomes an arm of the DOJ when refusing to do the right thing and release our firearms after the 30 days have passed.

no worries, but since the topic is of something in the future, which has yet to occur, and the OP is presuming something, not experiencing something, i just referenced real world. of the LGS i know, i see none of them holding anything longer than the legal limit, it is not in their best interest.

John M
11-06-2013, 5:23 PM
No LE Officer would get involved in this situation. Your assuming the Officer would take your side of the story without having the ability to find out why DOJ has refused to release the gun. Its Civil anyway, LE is not going to get involved..

One other thing,, In CA law, and most elsewhere, the word MAY leaves room for discretion, whereas SHALL does not.

WyattandDoc
11-06-2013, 6:33 PM
The chances are just about zero.

Please remember that felony grand theft requires the wrongful intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Simply retaining the property of another, where there is a basis to do so, is not grand theft.

I would strongly suspect that the gun shop manager would articulate a lawful reason for not releasing the firearm (like an incomplete DROS check).

^^^This^^^....It's a Civil Dispute

RickD427
11-06-2013, 6:48 PM
Good point, do you think the officer could compel the FFL to release the firearm after reading the AB500 after all the spirit of the law is to require the DOJ or allow FFL to release our firearms after they have adequate time to DROS. AB500 states on 1/1/2014 30 days is adequate time.

Rad,

That one isn't going to work either. Here is the pertinent part of AB500:

"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 purchaserís eligibility to purchase a firearm, as described in paragraph (1), within 30 days of the dealerís 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 dealerís recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred."
It gives the dealer the option (please note the use of the word "may") of transferring the firearm after 30 days. The law clearly makes the dealer the "decision maker" of whether the firearm is released or not.

Officers are well familiar with the limits of our authority. We can mediate disputes (with varying levels of success). But we can only arbitrate disputes where we have some form of legal standing. What you're really trying to do here is to change the law from the dealer being the decision-maker, to the officer being the decision-maker. It really doesn't matter what the merits of the argument are. The law is clear, the dealer is the decision-maker.

Mr357magnum
11-06-2013, 7:17 PM
Not looking to be an *** about this looking for open discussion or brain storming. The FFL becomes an arm of the DOJ when refusing to do the right thing and release our firearms after the 30 days have passed.

I think this law is a good way to set up dealers and then say "see I gotcha!" later.

Put yourself in the dealers shoes. Why would they release a gun if they haven't gotten the go ahead from DOJ? If the person in question turns out to be prohibited, then you've just delivered a gun to a prohibited person. Then, you're going to be dragged into court for probably a long time and have to spend mountains of money on lawyers even though you followed the law. The best thing for the dealer to do would be give the buyer's money back.

Its a weird law.. Not sure what the intentions were..

shooterfpga
11-06-2013, 7:31 PM
I think this law is a good way to set up dealers and then say "see I gotcha!" later.

Put yourself in the dealers shoes. Why would they release a gun if they haven't gotten the go ahead from DOJ? If the person in question turns out to be prohibited, then you've just delivered a gun to a prohibited person. Then, you're going to be dragged into court for probably a long time and have to spend mountains of money on lawyers even though you followed the law. The best thing for the dealer to do would be give the buyer's money back.

Its a weird law.. Not sure what the intentions were..

I cant recall any ffls dragged into any court cases, suspended or shutdown by atf for transfering any firearms to a person after they received a delay in any free state. Theyre given the brady statement and 3 day federal release if no final decision with specific time and date it can be released pending no denied comes back within that time.

OleCuss
11-06-2013, 7:38 PM
Whatever the proper interpretation of the law might seem to be to you and me, I'm betting the FFL would be in deep excrement if he released the firearm.

You may get a lot of sympathy on this forum, but I'd bet there'd be no sympathy from a DA, a judge, or a jury.

Your lawyer may be able to make things happen, but I doubt even that.

RickD427
11-06-2013, 7:40 PM
You are correct but look at the way that sentence is phrased it really doesn't imply the dealer has an option. The department shall immediately notify the dealer and the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser, upon the dealerís recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred." The use of immediately suggests a sense of urgency not really the ability to use self-judgment. What do you think?. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative

When I parse out the words of the statute, I just don't get to that conclusion. I read "immediately" as clarification the dealer need not await any other action (like a DROS reply) before releasing the firearm, not as creating an urgency that the firearm be released. If that was the intent of the legislature, then it they would have used the term "shall" instead of "may."

Please check out Post #18. That poster has a very good point. I suspect this provision in AB500 was in response to some extremely long delays in DOJ's processing of DROS's. Its quite common for the legislature to pass laws that, on the surface, appear to provide relief from a governmental harm, but are actually structured so that they don't. There's a good example in the Military Assault Weapon Registration program. No senator or assemblyperson wants to be seen as harming soldiers, sailors and marines. So we make up the MAW program so they can bring their AW's with them when ordered into California. Doesn't that seem like a reasonable thing to do? But then they have to get their base commander's signature on a form, the base commander has to certify the weapon is needed for the member's duties (as if the Army, Navy and Marines don't have enough weapons to issue), and they have to go through that process every year. What we've really done is only create an illusion of relief.

hermosabeach
11-06-2013, 7:42 PM
So a Citizens arrest places 100% of the liability on the person who wants the arrest made...

So if you do a citizens arrest, you can be found liable


But holding onto a security deposit after a renter moves out is a CIVIL COURT issue... not normally a criminal issue.....



Why are you hurt about a law that has not even gone live???

What shop do you want to crush?????????

KABA556
11-06-2013, 8:15 PM
What would be the likelihood of getting a police officer to file a citizenís arrest report on a gun shop manager/owner for felony grand theft (excess $400.00) for refusing to release a gun per AB500 on 1/2/2014? What could the repercussions be? Any legal minds out there want to offer input.



Can you clarify what you mean by a "citizens arrest report" as I do not believe that there is any such concept in Ohio.

In Ohio a citizen's arrest is something that is conducted physically, when a citizen sees a felony being committed or immediately after a felony was committed. It may also extend to a misdemeanor that constitutes a serious breach of the peace. But you cannot conduct a citizen's arrest [in Ohio] on somebody who stole your computer six weeks ago, but if you see somebody walking out of your house with your computer under one arm and a bag of loot under the other arm, you are able to use reasonable force to physically restrain/control them and place them under arrest. You are advised not to transport them anywhere [as this might be construed to be kidnapping], to immediately advise them that they are under arrest and why they are under arrest, and immediately/as soon as practically possible, contact the police and inform them of the situation.


I don't know of any provision in Ohio to file a "citizens arrest report" and ask the police to arrest somebody for you or have them allow you to arrest somebody based on your word that they are cheating you in a business agreement.

This sounds more like a civil action involving a breach of contract, with either a request for equitable remedy [specific performance] aka [delivery of the item] or a legal remedy [monetary damages].


I would be very careful if your intention is to confront the man and attempt to place him under citizens arrest. In fact, I would not do it.

This is basically a civil matter, attempting to arrest him [on your own] will result in opening yourself to at the least a law suit for false arrest and assault/battery and at the most criminal charges of kidnapping.



From an Ohio legal site developed by the State Bar Association-

Citizen's Arrest
The arrest of an accused without a warrant by any person, upon probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person detained committed it. In Ohio, a citizen's arrest is the only power of arrest conferred on the general public. Law enforcement officers have the same powers of arrest without a warrant as any citizen. Law enforcement officers have the additional power to arrest without a warrant for misdemeanors, and to execute arrest warrants issued for any offense.





If you believe that this man has committed a felony offense then I would suggest you speak with an attorney and consider what options you have for filing a civil suit and for pursuing criminal charges... However, from a practical point, keep in mind that if you press criminal charges and the man has to defend himself in a criminal case, it severely limits what he would have available to pay damages in a civil case. If for instance it was determined [by the finder of fact, be it the judge in a trial without a jury or the jury in a jury trial] that the man acted in bad faith and breached the contract for the sale of the item, then you might be able to receive punitive damages, but there won't be much to receive if his funds are depleted defending a criminal charge.

Also keep in mind that if you have criminal charges brought against him you might open yourself to a civil suit if the criminal charges are determined to be baseless.

CaliforniaLiberal
11-06-2013, 9:00 PM
There have been posts by others in exactly your frustrated, revenge on the LGS seeking frame of mind before now.

Haven't heard even one story of success in suing the FFL or getting them arrested for Grand Larceny.

Some buyers go completely nuts over store policies that require an 11 day waiting period to avoid any paperwork mistakes that might result in an illegal early release on the 10th day. Like Big 5 frinstance. Theft! Larceny! Can I legally break into Big 5 to get my gun?!?!

Sounds like in your case there is a pile of paper work you've provided the woefully understaffed CA DOJ and they might eventually work their way down to it and release your gun. So the only advice possible in this case, assuming you wish to save thousands of dollars in pointless legal fees it to take a :chillpill:


There can be no doubt that this system completely sucks. If you've been paying attention you would surely know this when you choose to by a gun in California. It's not really reasonable for you to demand the system to work as it should when it hasn't so many times before.

"Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."


And if, God Forbid, your delay lasts another two months, we would all like to know if your gun is released on January 2nd. Let us know.

jaymz
11-06-2013, 11:02 PM
That one isn't going to work either. Here is the pertinent part of AB500:

"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 purchaserís eligibility to purchase a firearm, as described in paragraph (1), within 30 days of the dealerís 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 dealerís recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred."
It gives the dealer the option (please note the use of the word "may") of transferring the firearm after 30 days. The law clearly makes the dealer the "decision maker" of whether the firearm is released or not.


"May" as used in the context above, does not give the dealer an option. It gives the dealer permission.

dfletcher
11-07-2013, 5:08 PM
The gun shop requires us to legally purchase the weapon before they DROS so I own the gun they are refusing to release. "I already closed escrow but they refuse to give me the keys to my house" Any merit to that line of though.

I generally don't pay in full for the gun until I pick it up. I'll usually pay anywhere from less than half to most of it, then 10 days later pay off & pick up. At a few gun stores that know of my bad habits they'll start paperwork even if I have no $$$ on me.

SVT-40
11-07-2013, 5:19 PM
Can you clarify what you mean by a "citizens arrest report" as I do not believe that there is any such concept in Ohio.

In Ohio a citizen's arrest is something that is conducted physically, when a citizen sees a felony being committed or immediately after a felony was committed. It may also extend to a misdemeanor that constitutes a serious breach of the peace. But you cannot conduct a citizen's arrest [in Ohio] on somebody who stole your computer six weeks ago, but if you see somebody walking out of your house with your computer under one arm and a bag of loot under the other arm, you are able to use reasonable force to physically restrain/control them and place them under arrest. You are advised not to transport them anywhere [as this might be construed to be kidnapping], to immediately advise them that they are under arrest and why they are under arrest, and immediately/as soon as practically possible, contact the police and inform them of the situation.


I don't know of any provision in Ohio to file a "citizens arrest report" and ask the police to arrest somebody for you or have them allow you to arrest somebody based on your word that they are cheating you in a business agreement.

This sounds more like a civil action involving a breach of contract, with either a request for equitable remedy [specific performance] aka [delivery of the item] or a legal remedy [monetary damages].


I would be very careful if your intention is to confront the man and attempt to place him under citizens arrest. In fact, I would not do it.

This is basically a civil matter, attempting to arrest him [on your own] will result in opening yourself to at the least a law suit for false arrest and assault/battery and at the most criminal charges of kidnapping.



From an Ohio legal site developed by the State Bar Association-

Citizen's Arrest
The arrest of an accused without a warrant by any person, upon probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person detained committed it. In Ohio, a citizen's arrest is the only power of arrest conferred on the general public. Law enforcement officers have the same powers of arrest without a warrant as any citizen. Law enforcement officers have the additional power to arrest without a warrant for misdemeanors, and to execute arrest warrants issued for any offense.





If you believe that this man has committed a felony offense then I would suggest you speak with an attorney and consider what options you have for filing a civil suit and for pursuing criminal charges... However, from a practical point, keep in mind that if you press criminal charges and the man has to defend himself in a criminal case, it severely limits what he would have available to pay damages in a civil case. If for instance it was determined [by the finder of fact, be it the judge in a trial without a jury or the jury in a jury trial] that the man acted in bad faith and breached the contract for the sale of the item, then you might be able to receive punitive damages, but there won't be much to receive if his funds are depleted defending a criminal charge.

Also keep in mind that if you have criminal charges brought against him you might open yourself to a civil suit if the criminal charges are determined to be baseless.

KABA556 Maybe you don't understand...

This is Calguns...

NOT Ohio guns...

No one in California cares about Ohio law......as it differs in many ways to California law, and is of zero relevance to any discussion here....

KABA556
11-07-2013, 5:22 PM
KABA556 Maybe you don't understand...

This is Calguns...

NOT Ohio guns...

No one in California cares about Ohio law......as it differs in many ways to California law, and is of zero relevance to any discussion here....



Cool, thanks for adding to the thread! I guess you intend to follow me around this site into thread after thread... Speak against the tyranny and get stalked by the five-0, something like that, eh?

I have never heard the term "citizens arrest report" so I asked him to clarify what that entails and what it means, if it is just a form one fills out or an actual physical act of arrest.


Also there's another thread where an individual is citing Ohio law as an inspiration for possible California law, but I guess you know that nobody on this forum cares about laws in other states, right?

Tincon
11-07-2013, 5:46 PM
I don't really think an PC837 arrest would be appropriate. This is a civil matter, in my opinion. Though if you paid him for the gun, and he won't give it to you or give a refund, there is arguably at least one crime that he could be charged with.

But it's more like if you bought a watch from someone, but to be safe the watch went into escrow until your check cleared. But once it did, the escrow place decides they would rather keep it. Same thing if they guy you paid held the watch until the check cleared. You don't need a law saying they have to give it to you, it's your property. The law provides remedies for people that have possession (lawful or otherwise) of property you hold legal title to, when you want it returned. They cannot just make up reasons to keep it from you.

stonefly-2
11-07-2013, 7:21 PM
so, bottom line. through an abundance of caution on the part of ffl's, delays could at 30 days become denials with deniability for the doj.

Bamadrifter
11-07-2013, 7:49 PM
I think this law is a good way to set up dealers and then say "see I gotcha!" later.

Put yourself in the dealers shoes. Why would they release a gun if they haven't gotten the go ahead from DOJ? If the person in question turns out to be prohibited, then you've just delivered a gun to a prohibited person. Then, you're going to be dragged into court for probably a long time and have to spend mountains of money on lawyers even though you followed the law. The best thing for the dealer to do would be give the buyer's money back.

Its a weird law.. Not sure what the intentions were..

+1 ...from a fella who has been present for several CA DOJ audits, you DON'T take any liberty with this stuff. Our management has to err on the side of caution if we want to stay open. I see this issue as a legal "wobbler" in that nobody wants to keep people from getting their guns, but nobody wants to play "gotcha" w/ DOJ. -- Let's endeavor to persevere.

Bamadrifter
11-07-2013, 7:54 PM
BTW, If you're tired of being "On Delay" then go get a refund. I doubt there's a gun shop anywhere in CA that would refuse to refund your purchase (minus $25 DROS fee). Life is hard, but we all die in the end anyway.

shooterfpga
11-07-2013, 7:56 PM
+1 ...from a fella who has been present for several CA DOJ audits, you DON'T take any liberty with this stuff. Our management has to err on the side of caution if we want to stay open. I see this issue as a legal "wobbler" in that nobody wants to keep people from getting their guns, but nobody wants to play "gotcha" w/ DOJ. -- Let's endeavor to persevere.

Its pretty sad that ffls in california have to worry about this when everyone else in the free world that adheres to federal law releases as per federal three day hold when given a delay instead of a proceed. Not one of them gives a second thought, they listen to the brady law speech by the nics agent at the call center, wait for a time and date theyre allowed to release and then hang up and fill out the boxes.

RickD427
11-07-2013, 8:12 PM
so, bottom line. through an abundance of caution on the part of ffl's, delays could at 30 days become denials with deniability for the doj.

Close, what it means is that delays at 30 days, will continue to be delays beyond 30 days. DOJ will now have the ability to say "The law provided relief for the potential gun purchaser." Now the FFL looks like the bad guy.

Tincon
11-07-2013, 8:40 PM
Put yourself in the dealers shoes. Why would they release a gun if they haven't gotten the go ahead from DOJ? If the person in question turns out to be prohibited, then you've just delivered a gun to a prohibited person. Then, you're going to be dragged into court for probably a long time and have to spend mountains of money on lawyers even though you followed the law.

Dragged into court for what, exactly? There is immunity from civil liability under federal law, and there could hardly be criminal liability when the DOJ has not issued a denial.

Tincon
11-07-2013, 8:41 PM
BTW, If you're tired of being "On Delay" then go get a refund. I doubt there's a gun shop anywhere in CA that would refuse to refund your purchase (minus $25 DROS fee). Life is hard, but we all die in the end anyway.

There are plenty. They love to charge a 30% restocking fee, then sell the gun again. Pure profit.

CSACANNONEER
11-07-2013, 8:48 PM
I believe that, even now, a FFL has the right and responsibility to not release a firearm to someone who they think might be planning on misusing it. If so, the FFL could argue that he is following the law. Also, I doubt a LEO would not see it for what it is, a civil matter.

Tincon
11-07-2013, 8:59 PM
I believe that, even now, a FFL has the right and responsibility to not release a firearm to someone who they think might be planning on misusing it. If so, the FFL could argue that he is following the law.

Perhaps so, but if sued they are going to need to convince a court of their suspicions by a preponderance of the evidence. It had better be good.

Also, I doubt a LEO would not see it for what it is, a civil matter.

Agreed.

SOAR79
11-07-2013, 9:05 PM
tough situation

TRICKSTER
11-07-2013, 9:17 PM
Cool, thanks for adding to the thread! I guess you intend to follow me around this site into thread after thread... Speak against the tyranny and get stalked by the five-0, something like that, eh?

I have never heard the term "citizens arrest report" so I asked him to clarify what that entails and what it means, if it is just a form one fills out or an actual physical act of arrest.


Also there's another thread where an individual is citing Ohio law as an inspiration for possible California law, but I guess you know that nobody on this forum cares about laws in other states, right?

Well to quote your good buddy....
This is a California forum, not a nationwide forum.

Gunsmith Dan
11-08-2013, 3:07 AM
Besides all that if not mentioned already filing in CA for a citizen's arrest DOES NOT make you immune to being sued, things like wrongful arrest, loss of income, financial loss etc.

You have to remember ANY Felony arrest, not conviction, automatically gets your FFL revoked ... without a FFL you can not sell guns ..... so you would be on the hook for the FFL losing his business and loss of all income.

RickD427
11-08-2013, 9:47 AM
"May" as used in the context above, does not give the dealer an option. It gives the dealer permission.

Jaymz,

Our choice or words are synonymous.

If the dealer has "permission" to release the weapon, he/she may do so, or they may not do so. One is not required to do something that is permitted.

Therein lies the "option" to do that thing or not.

Should we next argue whether most revolvers hold six rounds, or a half-dozen?

PhillyGunner
11-08-2013, 10:07 AM
..., as described in paragraph (1), within 30 days of the dealerís 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 dealerís recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred."[/INDENT][/I]
It gives the dealer the option (please note the use of the word "may") of transferring the firearm after 30 days. The law clearly makes the dealer the "decision maker" of whether the firearm is released or not.


While I agree that this use of 'may' does not 'require' the dealer to release the firearm under this statute, and therefore they wouldn't be guilty of a crime, it also releases the dealer from any legal requirement to not complete the contractual obligation they have entered into.

I can't see where it is in the interest of the dealer not to complete the transfer so as to avoid the Civil Law ramifications.

RickD427
11-08-2013, 10:25 AM
While I agree that this use of 'may' does not 'require' the dealer to release the firearm under this statute, and therefore they wouldn't be guilty of a crime, it also releases the dealer from any legal requirement to not complete the contractual obligation they have entered into.

I can't see where it is in the interest of the dealer not to complete the transfer so as to avoid the Civil Law ramifications.

I think you've got an excellent handle on what the law provides.

Here's where I see the dealer reluctance part kicking in. Please walk through the hypothetical with me:

1) Dealer lawfully releases a weapon to a purchaser prior to DOJ clearance at the 30 day point.

2) Buyer is later determined to be a prohibited person, and does something awful with the weapon.

3) The victims file suit against the dealer on the ground that he/she should have known (from the DOJ delay) the purchaser was likely prohibited and that due caution would require the dealer to withhold the weapon, even if the law allowed its release.

4) The dealer probably would have a winning case in court, but nobody gets to court for free. The dealer, and/or their insurer, are going to incur a lot a legal fees in order to win.

5) Most dealers are insured. Insurance companies often impose coverage limits on their customers in order to minimize their liability. I could also see California underwriters adding an AB500 clause to their policies.

6) Don't underestimate the "Business Decision" factor in all of this. Have you ever tried to purchase "EBR gear" from some of the internet outfits (CTD most often comes to mind) and have them, ship to California?

Tincon
11-08-2013, 10:33 AM
3) The victims file suit against the dealer on the ground that he/she should have known (from the DOJ delay) the purchaser was likely prohibited and that due caution would require the dealer to withhold the weapon, even if the law allowed its release.

4) The dealer probably would have a winning case in court, but nobody gets to court for free. The dealer, and/or their insurer, are going to incur a lot a legal fees in order to win.


Wrong. Look up "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act".

RickD427
11-08-2013, 11:00 AM
Wrong. Look up "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act".

Tincon,

I'm familiar with the act, and I'll stand by the content of my posting. Here's why:

The act does not prohibit the filing of a lawsuit. I wrote in my original posting that the dealer would likely prevail in the lawsuit, and the act is only one of the reasons that I wrote that. The act only provides a basis for the dismissal of the suit.

There are a few reasons why the act falls short in this case.

1) Legal pleadings in such cases typically take the "Shotgun" approach. The plaintiff will cite everything imaginable, and then see what sticks. The act is limited in scope. It doesn't cover everything imaginable.

2) Attorneys don't always file cases with the intent of winning them on the merits. A lot seek nuisance settlements and those are often made on winnable cases as a "business decision."

3) The act makes no provision for the recovery of expenses involved in defending an action. It doesn't cost a plaintiff anything to try.

If the act were such a perfect bar to litigation, why do the internet vendors fail to sell a lot of stuff to Californians? They're passing up a lot of business. There must be a reason.

Tincon
02-08-2014, 2:46 AM
CALFFL legal opinion on this subject, which I 100% agree with.

http://www.calffl.org/2014/02/memorandum-ca-firearms-dealers-undetermined-dros-transactions/

jaymz
02-08-2014, 8:55 AM
I 100% agree with your agreement.