Ammo Sales / Transfer on 1/1/2018

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by ugimports

*bump* added info to OP from an additional DOJ response I received

COPIED AND PASTED FROM OP


I heard back from CA DOJ (in writing) and received the following info:
Q. When processing internet transfers of ammunition for customers what are the fee limits?
$10 per transaction, per PC 30364

Q. What information is required to be on the receipts for ammo sales or internet transfers to customers?
A. Nothing at this time. Record keeping doesn’t start until July 1, 2019. PC 30352 states what information needs to be collected and recorded.

Q. Are there *any* records we have to keep on ammunition sales until the new system is in place in July 2019?
A. No. You should check to make sure there is no local ordinance that requires you to maintain ammunition sales records.

Q. Previously in 2017 when we sold ammo our receipts would simply say "Box of 9mm" or similar. I wanted to confirm that was still acceptable until the new requirements in July 2019. I also wanted to ensure I did not need any other paperwork to process ammunition sales.
A. At this point in time, that is still acceptable for ammunition sales.
--- Received answers from a different DOJ rep today 1/9/2018 --
Question 1: Internet sales are addressed in section 4263(b). In short, you may charge a storage fee that you and your customer agree on. We do not regulate storage fees.

Question 2: At this point we do not require specific info to be recorded on receipts.

Question 3: At this point we do not require you to keep any records of ammo sales. However, it may be a good idea for you to use a database, Excel spreadsheet, etc. and form a habit of recording information in anticipation of regulations that will be implemented in July 2019. Consider collecting the customer’s name, copy of their ID, date of purchase, make, caliber, and quantity of ammo. Remember, we do not currently require this but it may be a good idea to get in the habit of asking for this info.
---

[upsdude]

are we not allowed to post any ammo fs posts since the forum is closed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[OCArmory]

Got my ammo vendors license. It came separate from my renewal.

[ugimports]

see feedback on Ammo PPT procedure in OP

[Santa Cruz Armory]

Originally Posted by ugimports

see feedback on Ammo PPT procedure in OP

Thanks for all the updates!

[dvs762]

BOE told me an official bulletin on this whole thing is expected within the next couple of weeks. they just had a meeting yesterday about this. but yeah. tax is due...

[ugimports]

I wonder if some of my questions will be answered in the bulletin as well to make it more official. I'm assuming they were barraged with questions maybe some similar to mine.

[ugimports]

Here's what we decided on for now: http://ugimports.com/ammoxfer

[acespawnshop]

So we got an email from a customer who has asked about ordering ammo online and we gave him our fees and such. He emailed back saying the vendor is requesting that the customer upload OUR ammo vendor license with his purchase and the customer wants us to send our license to him. Thoughts? We don't send our FFL out to private individuals why would this be any different?

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by acespawnshop

So we got an email from a customer who has asked about ordering ammo online and we gave him our fees and such. He emailed back saying the vendor is requesting that the customer upload OUR ammo vendor license with his purchase and the customer wants us to send our license to him. Thoughts? We don't send our FFL out to private individuals why would this be any different?

I wouldn't do it just for the sake of us knowing what's coming. We also provide a link to FFL EzCheck that the customer can provide a vendor as well. Seems like anyone could technically forge an ammo vendor license and get ammo shipped anywhere they want. There's no way for the shipper/vendor to validate the info on it anyway.

In the case of FFLs at least they can validate that info via ezCheck.

[upsdude]

i would send the vendor the information, not the customer. it's too easy for that customer to take that info and use it as his own for private ammo sales.

[kemasa]

It is always best to send direct.

[acespawnshop]

Thanks, new question. What is everyone doing when you get multiple orders from different places? Ex Customer A buys 1000 rounds from Palmetto State, then buys 1000 rounds from cheaper than dirt?

[Santa Cruz Armory]

At this point we're sticking with our under 5000, over 5000 and over 10,000 round fee schedule. $20, $25 and contact for quote respectively

[Santa Cruz Armory]

At this point we're sticking with our under 5000, over 5000 and over 10,000 round fee schedule. $20, $25 and contact for quote respectively

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by ugimports

see feedback on Ammo PPT procedure in OP

Hi ugimports -

TL;DR - I think DOJ's written guidance to you regarding fee limits for processing PPTs via the internet is dead wrong.

"Short" discussion

It's odd that DOJ advised you that the fee limits for a PPT of ammo was $10, and cited CA PEN section 30364. This was the proposed law under SB 1235 if Prop 63 didn't pass. However,Prop 63 did away with this (there was also an obligation on an LAV / FFL01 to process PPTs in SB1235, but that also went away with Prop 63). Section 30364 doesn't exist.

Section 30364 only became operative under SB 1235 if Prop 63 failed. But SB 1235 also provided that if Prop 63 was passed, then much of it would go away, and only 3 sections in SB 1235 would be effective. Newly created section 30364 would not be effective if Prop 63 passed (which of course it did). As a consequence, CA PEN 30364 does not exist today.

The max administrative fee for PPTs of ammo (paid to FFL) is left to the DOJ under section 30312 created by Prop 63, which is in addition to any fees charged directly by DOJ. This authorization is contained in CA PEN section 30312(a)(2); and the implementing regs (CA Code of Regs, Title 11, Chap 5, Section 4263) provide for a max fee of $5, although it doesn't speak to any additional DOJ fees for such transactions. If you look at DOJ's responses to public comment on the proposed (now approved) ammo vendor regulations, they say a couple of times that they set the $5 limit in order to incent LAVs to conduct these transactions.

I believe that the advice you received from DOJ seems just plain wrong, not least because CA PEN 30364 doesn't exist. Or maybe they've just decided to impose a $5 DOJ fee in addition to the LAV / FFL max admin fee of $5 but not published that decision anywhere, nor explained why the DOJ fee is justified, nor explained how they derived this fee in advance of any background check or record-keeping requirements, nor cured themselves of quoting sections of code that don't exist in California law.

(I'm not an FFL01 - just trying to stay on top of the new ammo laws enacted by SB 1235 and Prop 63).

I don't want to mess up your thread with links to all this stuff (that would be the "Long Discussion" post), but I am happy to provide them in this thread if you think it warranted.



I'll finish by saying I am very happy to see our CA FFLs looking for ways to assist their customers with ammo purchases as cost-effectively as possible while still not damaging their own businesses. I wish you all the best of luck in navigating this mess, helping your customers, and growing your businesses.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by Cortelli

Hi ugimports -

TL;DR - I think DOJ's written guidance to you regarding fee limits for processing PPTs via the internet is dead wrong.

"Short" discussion

It's odd that DOJ advised you that the fee limits for a PPT of ammo was $10, and cited CA PEN section 30364. This was the proposed law under SB 1235 if Prop 63 didn't pass. However,Prop 63 did away with this (there was also an obligation on an LAV / FFL01 to process PPTs in SB1235, but that also went away with Prop 63). Section 30364 doesn't exist.

Section 30364 only became operative under SB 1235 if Prop 63 failed. But SB 1235 also provided that if Prop 63 was passed, then much of it would go away, and only 3 sections in SB 1235 would be effective. Newly created section 30364 would not be effective if Prop 63 passed (which of course it did). As a consequence, CA PEN 30364 does not exist today.

The max administrative fee for PPTs of ammo (paid to FFL) is left to the DOJ under section 30312 created by Prop 63, which is in addition to any fees charged directly by DOJ. This authorization is contained in CA PEN section 30312(a)(2); and the implementing regs (CA Code of Regs, Title 11, Chap 5, Section 4263) provide for a max fee of $5, although it doesn't speak to any additional DOJ fees for such transactions. If you look at DOJ's responses to public comment on the proposed (now approved) ammo vendor regulations, they say a couple of times that they set the $5 limit in order to incent LAVs to conduct these transactions.

I believe that the advice you received from DOJ seems just plain wrong, not least because CA PEN 30364 doesn't exist. Or maybe they've just decided to impose a $5 DOJ fee in addition to the LAV / FFL max admin fee of $5 but not published that decision anywhere, nor explained why the DOJ fee is justified, nor explained how they derived this fee in advance of any background check or record-keeping requirements, nor cured themselves of quoting sections of code that don't exist in California law.

(I'm not an FFL01 - just trying to stay on top of the new ammo laws enacted by SB 1235 and Prop 63).

I don't want to mess up your thread with links to all this stuff (that would be the "Long Discussion" post), but I am happy to provide them in this thread if you think it warranted.



I'll finish by saying I am very happy to see our CA FFLs looking for ways to assist their customers with ammo purchases as cost-effectively as possible while still not damaging their own businesses. I wish you all the best of luck in navigating this mess, helping your customers, and growing your businesses.

bolded - Not sure what you're referring to PPT of internet purchases.

The rest of what you discuss was covered in the TL;DR. As I mentioned I merely copy/pasted the answers I received (no additional vetting by me). It does illustrate that the law is so confusing those that are meant to audit against it are not even 100% sure what is correct.

No need for additional links for now since the relevant PC is in the middle of the thread somewhere as well.

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by ugimports

bolded - Not sure what you're referring to PPT of internet purchases.

Sorry - was referring to your first question & answer reported as a written response re: processing of transfers of internet ammo for customers. I thought you were referring to handling an internet delivery as a PPT under the ammo laws.

DOJ's written response to you in regards to this apparently referred to a $10 fee per transaction, per CA PEN code 30364. I was surprised that DOJ was both responding in writing and citing a code section that doesn't exist. The original section 30364 dealt with PPTs; I am still not clear on whether DOJ will see a transfer of ammo purchased over the internet as a PPT (even though it is clearly not a FTF PPT).

In reading the laws and regs, I was (and am) under the impression that a LAV (including those deemed licensed by virtue of being a CFD) could charge varying fees (including above $10 per transaction) WRT internet purchases processed for local customers.

It does illustrate that the law is so confusing those that are meant to audit against it are not even 100% sure what is correct.

Wholeheartedly agree. In fact, my point was that I don't think DOJ is at all clear as to what is correct (in terms of potential audit issues, fees, etc.), which would seem to put those of you with a dealer's license trying to sort this all out for the benefit of both your customers and your business in the untenable / unenviable position of flying by the seats of your pants.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by Cortelli

...
Wholeheartedly agree. In fact, my point was that I don't think DOJ is at all clear as to what is correct (in terms of potential audit issues, fees, etc.), which would seem to put those of you with a dealer's license trying to sort this all out for the benefit of both your customers and your business in the untenable / unenviable position of flying by the seats of your pants.

I think this is why a bulletin will be coming out to ensure at least all the dealers have the same consistent info (right or wrong)...

[upsdude]

so hows it going so far with the shipments? any complaints about the acceptance rates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Santa Cruz Armory]

Lots of "tire kickers" asking questions but no ammo transfers yet. As it becomes accepted and the new norm I think it will pick up like all of our other crazy changes in this state..

[upsdude]

same here. i get alot grumbling when i tell them i am REQUIRED to collect sales tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ugimports]

We've done 3 transfers so far under the new ammo rules.

[Sbstyl]

Originally Posted by ugimports

We've done 3 transfers so far under the new ammo rules.

Did you have to get on a vendor list with the ammo shop that the customer ordered from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by Sbstyl

Did you have to get on a vendor list with the ammo shop that the customer ordered from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No we did not. We just send our FFL info if the seller requested. Brownells was one of the senders and didn't request.

[Sbstyl]

Originally Posted by ugimports

No we did not. We just send our FFL info if the seller requested. Brownells was one of the senders and didn't request.

Ok thanks.
Was not sure if that way worked. Good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by upsdude

same here. i get alot grumbling when i tell them i am REQUIRED to collect sales tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You are not required to collect sales tax, but you are required to submit the money :-).

[upsdude]

good point
target sports has gives ffl’s an option to accept ammo for free in exchange for being placed on the top if the dealer list. you can choose to charge a fee but you’ll get lower placement. im debating which to opt for.

Originally Posted by ugimports

We've done 3 transfers so far under the new ammo rules.

what fee structure did you end up going with? trying out a flat fee and seeing how that goes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Santa Cruz Armory]

So how are everyone's ammo transfers going? It's steady for us.

[Condorguns]

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz Armory

So how are everyone's ammo transfers going? It's steady for us.

It's been steady here also. Probably picking up one or two new folks a week. So far the orders coming in have been pretty small (a few boxes up to a few 1000 rd cases per customer). I haven't had anyone try and big in a really large order yet thank goodness. We had to clear out an area to store this new ammo and come up with a label system to make finding the order easer when they come to pick it up. We found out quickly that the area we cleared out wasn't big enough. Because we need to keep all the customer boxes together it was taking up more room than just stacking up boxed ammo.

[northridgegun]

Questions for FFL on ammo transfers...
When sales tax is collected based on the invoice price, is there a form that gets filled out?
Also, if I order ammo from 2 sources at the same time, is it x2 transfer fee?

[acespawnshop]

So far we get a few a week. We seem to be only getting 1 or 2 cases at a time.

No from for tax other than your usual sales tax forms.
It depends on what your FFL does. We charge, since we have to deal with it twice.

[upsdude]

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz Armory

So how are everyone's ammo transfers going? It's steady for us.

i get a few orders here and there but nothing consistent yet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Milsurp1]

As a sort of informal poll, how many FFL dealers believe the PPT limit is 50 rounds? I don’t believe that to be true, but I am curious how many FFLs apply that rule.

[northridgegun]

Originally Posted by Milsurp1

As a sort of informal poll, how many FFL dealers believe the PPT limit is 50 rounds? I don’t believe that to be true, but I am curious how many FFLs apply that rule.

Do you mean 500?

[Milsurp1]

Nope, was literally kicked out because of the perceived fifty limit.

[acespawnshop]

Originally Posted by Milsurp1

As a sort of informal poll, how many FFL dealers believe the PPT limit is 50 rounds? I don’t believe that to be true, but I am curious how many FFLs apply that rule.

I don't know what you are referencing here.

[Milsurp1]

I was wondering how many FFL dealers believe that there is a fifty (50) round limit on PPT ammo transfers (transaction at the FFl).

[shootsocal_dave]

Originally Posted by Milsurp1

I was wondering how many FFL dealers believe that there is a fifty (50) round limit on PPT ammo transfers (transaction at the FFl).

500 limit. You sell more than 500 in a month and you need a ammo vendor license.

[gaberaynes]

Originally Posted by shootsocal_dave

500 limit. You sell more than 500 in a month and you need a ammo vendor license.

So this is the part that is confusing me(actually the whole damn thing is) but I am curious how the whole person to person works. If uncle joe has a box of 50 .357 he wants to sell does he have to go through ffl or just sell them since under 500rds for the month? Sorry if I missed it in the thread but as I was going through I was getting more confused.