Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:12 PM
MCubeiro's Avatar
MCubeiro MCubeiro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default RULING IN NRA/CRPA LAWSUIT REIGNS IN DOJ’S MISUSE OF DROS FEES

Happy Friday all!

RULING IN NRA/CRPA LAWSUIT REIGNS IN DOJ’S MISUSE OF DROS FEES

A California state court has issued an important ruling holding DOJ accountable for its historical mismanagement and misuse of DROS (dealer record of sale) account funds collected as fees from gun purchasers.

The ruling came in the NRA and CRPA supported case of Gentry v. Becerra.

DROS fee funds are only supposed to be used to cover limited and specific expenses, like conducting background checks on gun buyers. But to avoid spending money from other sources on general law enforcement activities, DOJ has for years been improperly overcharging gun buyers and raiding the DROS funds to cover expenses that DROS funds were never intended to pay for. So now the Court has ordered the DOJ to review whether the $19 fee currently charged for firearm purchases in California is being improperly set too high.

The Court's order prohibits DOJ from using DROS fee funds for unrelated law enforcement efforts, with very minimal exceptions. DOJ contended that it could use DROS funds to pay for all of its general law enforcement efforts related to illegal firearm possession. But NRA / CRPA attorneys pointed out that the DOJ was directly involved in drafting the language that it relied upon to take this position, and the evidence showed DOJ intentionally drafted the statutory language so DOJ could later mischaracterize it to make it appear that the Legislature had granted DOJ authority to use DROS funds for more programs than the legislature actually intended.

Thankfully, the Court saw through DOJ's mischaracterizations, and concluded that DOJ is only authorized to use DROS funds to investigate people identified in the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), and not just anyone DOJ suspects of being prohibited from possessing firearms.

Prior to Kamala Harris being elected California’s Attorney General in 2010, collection of excessive DROS fees had generated a surplus of nearly $15 million. Since first established at $19 per transaction (and $15 for each additional handgun) however, DOJ has never done the statutorily required review to determine whether the current $19 DROS fee is “no more than necessary to fund” the certain specifically authorized costs it is supposed to cover. DOJ failed to identify any internal process that would trigger the mandatory review of the current fee, and instead offered vague excuses about the level of review it should perform. And DOJ failed to produce any documentation to substantiate its claim that it performs “regular monitoring” of the DROS fee as required by law. So the Court found that DOJ’s failure to review the amount of the DROS fee since 2004 was “insufficient to comply with the ministerial duty” imposed on DOJ, and that DOJ must now conduct such a review.

In other words, DOJ has been charging gun buyers too much for the DROS fee, spending DROS money on unauthorized expenses, and going out of its way to avoid accounting for it.

The ruling in the Gentry case serves as yet another example of DOJ’s constant overreach, mismanagement, and blatant disregard for its obligations, and for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

For over 20 years, the NRA and CRPA Regulatory Watchdog Program has been holding DOJ accountable. To stay informed on this case, as well as other important Second Amendment issues in California, make sure you are subscribed to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And if you are interested in being a plaintiff in a lawsuit like this, including the upcoming lawsuit challenging the recently enacted ammunition sales restrictions, please contact NRA and CRPA attorneys at potentialplaintiffs@michellawyers.com for more information.
__________________


NRA Certified Instructor- Pistol, Rifle, PPITH, PPOTH, Metallic Cartridge Reloading, Home Firearm Safety, Refuse to be a Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Patron Member
CRPA Life Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:16 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,913
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Thank You for the fight and thank you for sharing this information.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:20 PM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 290
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Thanks for doing what you do.

I don't suppose we will receive money back for all our overpriced DROS fees, will we?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:24 PM
Two Nuggets Two Nuggets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 550
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamVIP View Post
Thanks for doing what you do.

I don't suppose we will receive money back for all our overpriced DROS fees, will we?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:27 PM
357manny's Avatar
357manny 357manny is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,194
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

This is great. Make the CADOJ actually accountable. Thank you, glad I contributed
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:35 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Nice win.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:39 PM
Maltese Falcon's Avatar
Maltese Falcon Maltese Falcon is online now
Ordo Militaris Templi
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 5,914
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

We actually have had a run of some good news this year. Yay!

Donation to CRPA inbound...

Now about my 23 x refunds?

.
__________________
The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. Charles-Louis de Secondat (1689-1755) Baron de Montesquieu


In America, freedom and justice have always come from the ballot box, the jury box, and when that fails, the cartridge box.
Steve Symms, ex-U.S. Senator, Idaho

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:46 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
☆☆ More Cowbell ☆☆
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Overhead Orbit
Posts: 10,000
iTrader: 122 / 100%
Default

Dem supermajority will just pencil whip the law and turn this into a loss, probably raise the fee to a flat rate ($50) instead of 'no more than necessary', and also change it so it can be used for a wide variety of LE purposes.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but they have too much time on their hands and a hard on for guns. They will claw back this money and then some. They never met a tax they didn't raise or extend. Once they have a taste for a revenue stream and they face no consequences for mining it, forget it.
__________________
.



"Texans always move them!"
General Robert E. Lee, May 6, 1864 - Battle of the Wilderness

Last edited by SkyHawk; 08-18-2017 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:50 PM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Excellent work!

Is there any possibility the DOJ could eventually be forced to repay some of those funds to the gun purchasers?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:01 PM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Dazed & Confused
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 6,954
iTrader: 273 / 100%
Default

Amazing we can get a win in the state!! Great work. I wish Ms. Harris could somehow be held accountable for the missing cash.

My attitude was helped greatly with this news. Maybe one day justice will be served.
__________________
I love America for the rights and freedoms we used to have.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:04 PM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,122
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

if i can get refund for my DROS, about 20, all the money will go to CRPA
__________________
WTB: Hudson H9.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:06 PM
bababoris bababoris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 709
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Congrats! One step forward two steps back. Sorry for being a downer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:15 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,967
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This is very important win, not just because of the fees, but because it clearly shows that the DOJ can and does overreach and that the courts are "good enough" to uphold the law when it comes to DOJ's statutory duties.

This is how we expect the "AW regulations" lawsuit to go too.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:20 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 3,662
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Very cool!

This sounds like enough of a win for a class action lawsuit. Will that be happening?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:31 PM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,089
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

judge michael p. kenny appointed by demosh[i]t governor gray davis.

https://ballotpedia.org/Michael_P._Kenny
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:38 PM
Anonymous_Ghost's Avatar
Anonymous_Ghost Anonymous_Ghost is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Silly Con Valley
Posts: 76
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Every victory counts. Hope they lower the DROS fees now. Should be $5 tops.
__________________
Freedom thrives on the illusion of choice. Slaves feel free when they get to choose a different side of the same coin. This distracts them from from the bonds of their economic chains and ensures their allegiance to their captives. ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:44 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,086
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
This is very important win, not just because of the fees, but because it clearly shows that the DOJ can and does overreach and that the courts are "good enough" to uphold the law when it comes to DOJ's statutory duties.

This is how we expect the "AW regulations" lawsuit to go too.
I can only hope.

This particular judge likes the People v. Snook(1997) ruling "the Court is first guided by the statute's plain language" which should be the nail in the coffin for the DOJs overreach wrt the 30900(b)(1) AW registration regulations. That should be a slam dunk.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-18-2017, 1:58 PM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,089
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous_Ghost View Post
Every victory counts. Hope they lower the DROS fees now. Should be $5 tops.
it should be $0 tops.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-18-2017, 2:54 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is online now
Voted Most Ready CGN'er
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 7,568
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

To be clear, this was a narrower opinion than originally sought?

We were denied (or just ignored?) claims of illegal tax disguised as a "fee"?

Am I confusing Bauer v.? Am I just confused? Is Bauer still in play?
__________________

Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-18-2017, 3:15 PM
laurelpark's Avatar
laurelpark laurelpark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,037
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Who cares about the DROS fees that were overcharged... The real win here is to attack the credibility of the DoJ in order to show in future lawsuits that they can't be trusted to act in good faith, and in the spirit of the law. If they can't be trusted to act properly in something as simple as not misappropriating fees that they collect, how can they be trusted to act properly when it comes to far reaching (and citizen property loss generating) AW laws and regulations?

Good win.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-18-2017, 3:36 PM
JoshlikesARs's Avatar
JoshlikesARs JoshlikesARs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: North Bay
Posts: 277
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Just donated to CRPA!!! Every little bit helps protect our civil rights!!!!
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." —Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-18-2017, 6:49 PM
rp55's Avatar
rp55 rp55 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,630
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but they have too much time on their hands and a hard on for guns.
Ah but thankfully they are now distracted by virtue signalling and going all in to send people to jail who fail to address trannies by their preferred terms.
__________________
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/rpwhite55/guns/member13443.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2017, 6:58 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good job guys!

__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2017, 7:02 PM
shotcaller6's Avatar
shotcaller6 shotcaller6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 37°44'16.40" N 121°25'53.28" W aka Tracy, CA. 95376
Posts: 629
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laurelpark View Post
Who cares about the DROS fees that were overcharged... The real win here is to attack the credibility of the DoJ in order to show in future lawsuits that they can't be trusted to act in good faith, and in the spirit of the law. If they can't be trusted to act properly in something as simple as not misappropriating fees that they collect, how can they be trusted to act properly when it comes to far reaching (and citizen property loss generating) AW laws and regulations?

Good win.
Totally nailed it!
__________________
A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-18-2017, 7:06 PM
Vlad 11's Avatar
Vlad 11 Vlad 11 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: S.F.V.
Posts: 2,895
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

CADOJ: Everybody down on the floor! Nobody move! We're takin the DROS Fees!

CA Gunowner: Hey.... Do something

CA Courts: Oh, im not a Security Guard, Im a Security Monitor

I only notify people if there is a robbery ........

... There's a robbery
__________________

Last edited by Vlad 11; 08-18-2017 at 7:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-18-2017, 8:14 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 785
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Great work!

Does this cross over into RICO territory? Federally-regulated computer networks were undoubtedly used in DOJ communications regarding the DROS program.
__________________
Department of Homeland Security lists select-fire AR-15s with 30 round mags as suitable for personal defense

If registering an "assault weapon", consider attaching a note with the photo stating "submitting under duress and coercion as California's laws defining "assault weapons" are more restrictive than the purview of the Federal National Firearms Act. CA's "assault weapon" registration process has caused undue burden . V.C. {FirstName LastName}
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-19-2017, 2:37 AM
NoHeavyHitter's Avatar
NoHeavyHitter NoHeavyHitter is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
if i can get refund for my DROS, about 20, all the money will go to CRPA
I would happily do the same if there's some way it could become a class action.
__________________
Calling illegal aliens “undocumented immigrants” is like calling drug dealers “unlicensed pharmacists”…
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-19-2017, 8:05 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
the Court saw through DOJ's mischaracterizations, and concluded that DOJ is only authorized to use DROS funds to investigate people identified in the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), and not just anyone DOJ suspects of being prohibited from possessing firearms.
Why would the court affirm that the DOJ can continue to use DROS for the APPS program? Is this the limited and specific use of the DROS fees?... I thought it was only for background checks on buyers.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-19-2017, 9:49 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,941
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Why would the court affirm that the DOJ can continue to use DROS for the APPS program? Is this the limited and specific use of the DROS fees?... I thought it was only for background checks on buyers.
The judge cited Sec 1(g) of the uncodified provisions of SB 819 as limiting DOJ's use of funds (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201120120SB819)
Quote:
(g) Rather than placing an additional burden on the taxpayers of California to fund enhanced enforcement of the existing armed prohibited persons program, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this measure to allow the DOJ to utilize the Dealer Record of Sale Account for the additional, limited purpose of funding enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons System.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-19-2017, 1:28 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
To be clear, this was a narrower opinion than originally sought?

We were denied (or just ignored?) claims of illegal tax disguised as a "fee"?

Am I confusing Bauer v.? Am I just confused? Is Bauer still in play?
Good input - I also am wondering if someone can elaborate on readysetgo's query.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-19-2017, 2:23 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 785
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Prosecuting public officials/figures for corruption - American Bar Association - link to pdf

It gets good on page 4:
PROSECUTING STATE AND LOCAL CORRUPTION

"While the Hobbs Act is limited to conduct that “obstructs, delays or affects
interstate commerce [commerce between two or more states],” this requirement is
hardly any requirement at all since all that is needed is a small or practically
negligible effect.

A Hobbs Act violation may serve as the foundation for RICO offenses."

Would not CA's handgun roster, Roos list, recent "assault weapon" and ammo laws be blatant obstructions and delays to intersate commerce and thus violations of the Hobbs Act?

How many in state or out of state vendors have CA cities/counties or CA DOJ sued or threatened to sue for shipping items into CA that are legal at the Federal level and in the majority of US states? (potential extortion via threat of lawsuit)
__________________
Department of Homeland Security lists select-fire AR-15s with 30 round mags as suitable for personal defense

If registering an "assault weapon", consider attaching a note with the photo stating "submitting under duress and coercion as California's laws defining "assault weapons" are more restrictive than the purview of the Federal National Firearms Act. CA's "assault weapon" registration process has caused undue burden . V.C. {FirstName LastName}
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-19-2017, 4:03 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Why would the court affirm that the DOJ can continue to use DROS for the APPS program? Is this the limited and specific use of the DROS fees?... I thought it was only for background checks on buyers.
That is just how this revenue generating snowball started to roll. DOJ started illegally raiding DROS funds for enforcement purposes. Got Sued, and went whining to their political masters to bail them out. The legislature started "ADDING" to the reasons DOJ could use DROS funds for "other" than background checks.

Not happy with the new expansion of their budget windfalls. DOJ continued to over reach the purpose of legislation. And find newer better reasons to raid the DROS funds extra legally.

Hate to be a Debby Downer. But before DOJ ever complies and gives an accounting of their extra legal thieving to the court. Their political masters in
SacOCrapmento will "adjust" legislation to cover their thieving AZZES AGAIN.

History will repeat itself.


JM2c
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-22-2017, 5:21 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Commiefornia
Posts: 4,450
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

With that kind of surplus, we shouldn't be charged more than the 10 that goes to the dealer until the surplus drops to a specific level. In a perfect Kalifornia, that is.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-22-2017, 5:51 PM
Spyder's Avatar
Spyder Spyder is offline
Just me, baby. Just me.
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 10,656
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous_Ghost View Post
Every victory counts. Hope they lower the DROS fees now. Should be $5 tops.
How much is it in other states?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-22-2017, 6:21 PM
jcchmbrs jcchmbrs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NCIC back in TN was $10
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-22-2017, 6:28 PM
pdq_wizzard's Avatar
pdq_wizzard pdq_wizzard is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Member of the CA Quiters Club now Around Boise, ID
Posts: 3,697
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
How much is it in other states?
$0.00 in Idaho

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
__________________
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for Clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
More what? More crazy?
You live in California. There's always more crazy. It's a renewable resource.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-22-2017, 6:37 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is no DROS in AZ. The NICS check costs zero dollars.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:56 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 142
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
That is just how this revenue generating snowball started to roll. DOJ started illegally raiding DROS funds for enforcement purposes. Got Sued, and went whining to their political masters to bail them out. The legislature started "ADDING" to the reasons DOJ could use DROS funds for "other" than background checks.

Not happy with the new expansion of their budget windfalls. DOJ continued to over reach the purpose of legislation. And find newer better reasons to raid the DROS funds extra legally.

Hate to be a Debby Downer. But before DOJ ever complies and gives an accounting of their extra legal thieving to the court. Their political masters in
SacOCrapmento will "adjust" legislation to cover their thieving AZZES AGAIN.

History will repeat itself.


JM2c
I'm sure most in Sacramento see it as a sin tax. If they adjust the law to make it legal to take the surplus I bet they increase the fees. Why steal a million when you can steal millions.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:38 AM
Mail Clerk Mail Clerk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That is good to hear! Now that the DOJ has egg on their face again perhaps the AW registration should just mysteriously disapear.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:00 PM
AceGirlsHusband's Avatar
AceGirlsHusband AceGirlsHusband is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,615
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A court ordering DOJ to review itself should produce a fair result, yes?
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lorcin L380 with bottle opener mag attachment
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:50 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.