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
  #41  
Old 02-04-2015, 12:45 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,412
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
Yes you missed reading the OP. That legislation is exactly what's being challenged here. Notice all the references to SB 819? That was, what's come to be referred to as "the DROS fund raid." A tax, dressed up as something different, to avoid the proper procedures a tax must go through in the legislature.
Ok, you are right, I glossed the OP and mistook this for the lawsuit to get the DROS lowered because there was a huge surplus - which said suit, preceded the legislative approval for them to do just exactly that, raid the till. So now there's a lawsuit to fight the law they passed implicitly to invalidate the suit that challenged the surplus to begin with. Yee haw. I have now fully read the OP and I do hope our side prevails but this is one I am not as confident in winning.

I expect them to try to make the case that background checks up front are one important tool to keep prohibited people from getting guns, and that APPS is an equally necessary tool to remove guns from people who BECOME prohibited. I personally have all kinds of issues with how the APPS program is being handled but having a team that performs that function is a natural and nearly eventual consequence of having firearms registered. Which makes it unsurprising to me that they eventually got around to requiring long arms to be registered as well as handguns.

I'd like to see us win, and do away with slush-fundiness, the APPS program (as currently implemented), and even with registration. I think that's kind of a tall order though.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-09-2015, 4:48 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

This just in...

Quote:
Case Number: 2013-80001667

Case Title: David Gentry vs. Kamala Harris

ROA Entry: Notice of Hearing filed.

A document associated with the case number and register of action entry above was added to our system on 2/9/2015 406 PM.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-10-2015, 1:57 PM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 235
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
This just in...
Details from the court website:

Quote:
Petition for Writ of Mandate - Writ of Mandate scheduled for 06/05/2015 at 09:00:00 AM in Department 31 at Gordon D Schaber Courthouse .
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-12-2015, 10:35 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
Ok, you are right, I glossed the OP and mistook this for the lawsuit to get the DROS lowered because there was a huge surplus - which said suit, preceded the legislative approval for them to do just exactly that, raid the till. So now there's a lawsuit to fight the law they passed implicitly to invalidate the suit that challenged the surplus to begin with. Yee haw. I have now fully read the OP and I do hope our side prevails but this is one I am not as confident in winning.

I expect them to try to make the case that background checks up front are one important tool to keep prohibited people from getting guns, and that APPS is an equally necessary tool to remove guns from people who BECOME prohibited. I personally have all kinds of issues with how the APPS program is being handled but having a team that performs that function is a natural and nearly eventual consequence of having firearms registered. Which makes it unsurprising to me that they eventually got around to requiring long arms to be registered as well as handguns.

I'd like to see us win, and do away with slush-fundiness, the APPS program (as currently implemented), and even with registration. I think that's kind of a tall order though.
If they want to have their APPS program then it needs to be funded thru the normal procedures and appropriated funds. If it's for safety of the general public.....then the cost must be shared by the general public......not my taxing gun owners who have done nothing wrong except to exercise their constitutional rights. The DROS fee is only supposed to be enuff to cover actual costs of the background check program. The fact that there was a surplus means we'd been being over charged for years. Then they turn around and claim they can't comply with the change to the 10-day wait because they have no money. Can't have it both ways.

It cost me $15.75 to renew my UT CCW. which includes making me a new card and mailing it to me....renewal app all done online BTW. Why does it cost CA $25 to run a single background check for a purchase?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 02-12-2015 at 10:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-09-2015, 4:29 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
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: 7,557
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

No case updates I know of but...

Relevant news, found posted in CCW sub-forums:

Quote:
JULY 9, 2015

Audit faults Department of Justice for gun case backlog

Lawmakers in 2013 approved legislation appropriating $24 million to the Department of Justice to address a backlog of cases of prohibited people having guns. But the state auditor said the department had failed to fully implement seven of eight recommendations made in 2013 to improve department procedures.
Story links to audit report: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-504.pdf

Story also back links to a news report from March:
Quote:
MARCH 17, 2015

California continues to have large backlog of prohibited gun owners

In a letter to Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, several GOP senators called for a hearing on the program, in part to demand that justice officials explain how the department has spent 40 percent of the $24 million “when they didn’t hire the needed staff to end the backlog.”
Basically, after robbing us, they proceeded to fail at their own utopian attempts miserably. Or did they? Maybe they got some of their cousins jobs or expanded that dreaded overtime for their agents.
__________________

Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-09-2015, 4:40 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

I'd have to check the docket. Saw something come across last week but can't recall offhand. Maybe a proposed order dismissing the case? Will check later.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-09-2015, 6:00 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
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: 7,557
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I'd have to check the docket. Saw something come across last week but can't recall offhand. Maybe a proposed order dismissing the case? Will check later.
Yeah, after my post above I saw there was a bunch of activity from Feb - Jun 15. I can't make sense of it all though.

Docs here: http://michellawyers.com/gentry-v-harris/

Last three activities listed there:
Quote:
6/5/2015 - Court - Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1

6/2/2015 - Plaintiff - Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

6/1/2015 - Court - Ruling on Request for Production of Withheld Documents Via Expedited Dispute Resolution Procedure

Last edited by readysetgo nekkid!; 07-09-2015 at 6:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-28-2015, 6:37 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 575
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Update on Case

Gentry is slowly moving forward in Sacramento. On June 1, 2015, the Trial Court ordered Defendants Kamala Harris (Attorney General for the State of California) and Stephen Lindley (Chief of the California Department of Justice’s Firearms Bureau) to produce 11 documents they had withheld from the Plaintiffs. The documents concern the Department of Justice’s (Department) internal analysis of the amount being charged for the DROS fee. Defendants withheld the documents under a claim that production of the documents “would chill full and candid assessment of departmental budget issues in general and similar issues affecting the Bureau of Firearms in particular.” The Trial Court, did not agree, however, and it ordered the production of all 11 of the documents the Plaintiffs had requested. The Trial Court stated it could “identify no public interest in not disclosing records of an analysis the Department is required to perform in order to charge the public a fee.”

Just a few days later, on June 5, 2015, the Trial Court heard oral arguments on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP), which was an attempt to knock out a major portion of Plaintiffs’ case. The MJOP was grounded in the claim that Senate Bill (SB) 819 (allowing the DROS Fee to be used to fund APPS-based law enforcement activities, and perhaps more) violates Proposition 26, as found in Article XIIIA, section 3, of the California Constitution. Proposition 26 requires a 2/3 vote of each house for any bill that will result in “any tax payer paying a higher tax.” Plaintiffs argue that SB 819 turned a portion of funds collected under the guise of the (overinflated) DROS fee into a tax because it changed who pays for APPS-based law enforcement. Before SB 819, it was paid for out of the general fund; after SB 819, DROS fee payers appear to be the only ones footing the bill.

On July 20, 2015, the Trial Court finalized its ruling on the MJOP. Unfortunately, it ruled in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the SB 819-based claim, apparently based on Defendants’ argument that, because SB 819 did not raise the amount at which the DROS Fee is charged (i.e., it was $19 before SB 819 and remains $19), it did not create a “higher tax.” That ruling will (at least for now) knock out Plaintiffs’ Proposition 26-based challenge to the DROS fee. Plaintiffs’ position is that the ruling incorrectly confuses the distinct concepts of fees and taxes, and that Plaintiffs will likely seek review of the ruling at the appellate court level.

Regardless of the ruling on the MJOP, the case will continue. Plaintiffs intend to pursue at least one other claim in this lawsuit (seeking to have the Department of Justice actually calculate what the DROS fee should cost), and they may attempt to add new claims based on other constitutional arguments not previously raised. There are, however, procedural concerns to evaluate before determining how best to proceed. But we will keep everyone updated.

Copies of the orders mentioned above are available at:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...-Procedure.pdf

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...er-Hearing.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-18-2016, 3:20 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
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: 7,557
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Looks like an amended complaint was filed 12/30/15. This issue should not fall out of our minds IMO, they robbed us cold w/ this tax hidden as a fee.

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Curious about the docs mentioned by Brady here (thank you Mr. Brady btw for your explanations in this thread):
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
[snip]On June 1, 2015, the Trial Court ordered Defendants Kamala Harris (Attorney General for the State of California) and Stephen Lindley (Chief of the California Department of Justice’s Firearms Bureau) to produce 11 documents they had withheld from the Plaintiffs. [snip]
Are these 11 docs unavailable for public consumption? What is the word for a request of documents such as this, "discovery"?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-18-2016, 4:21 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

I'm curious about this too^
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-20-2016, 8:20 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,921
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
Looks like an amended complaint was filed 12/30/15. This issue should not fall out of our minds IMO, they robbed us cold w/ this tax hidden as a fee.

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Curious about the docs mentioned by Brady here (thank you Mr. Brady btw for your explanations in this thread):


Are these 11 docs unavailable for public consumption? What is the word for a request of documents such as this, "discovery"?
Linky no worky
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-20-2016, 8:28 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
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: 7,557
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Linky no worky
Link looks good, whole site may be down.
__________________

Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-21-2016, 10:03 AM
PartyBarge's Avatar
PartyBarge PartyBarge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

When I see the NRA on board with a lawsuit, it makes me so happy to be a member of the NRA. I'd hate to think my membership dues went only to ads, glad to see it make it's way into the legal system as well.
__________________
US Navy Veteran
NRA Life Member
Springfield Armory
Smith&Wesson
IWI
Henry

------------------------------------
"Why does anyone need an AR-15?
You mean you don't know? So what kind of reporter are you? It's easy! It's a great friggen gun!" - Alan Korwin, 2015
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-21-2016, 10:05 AM
PartyBarge's Avatar
PartyBarge PartyBarge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
Link looks good, whole site may be down.
Link works for me.
__________________
US Navy Veteran
NRA Life Member
Springfield Armory
Smith&Wesson
IWI
Henry

------------------------------------
"Why does anyone need an AR-15?
You mean you don't know? So what kind of reporter are you? It's easy! It's a great friggen gun!" - Alan Korwin, 2015
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-21-2016, 2:46 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,921
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

worked for me just now
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:34 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,372
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Update 8/18/2017 - favorable ruling. See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1368261
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-18-2017, 3:08 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A good and proper ruling. I note that this case has been pending around four years already, and is a long way from over. I also assume that the DOJ will appeal at some point, but this time the appeal will be to the generally conservative Third district, not the Ninth Circuit. And even if there is no refund of fees, we may see a reduction to the limits imposed by the law, and that would be a good thing, even if years away.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-18-2017, 3:32 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,921
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Can we do our own analysis to show what a reasonable fee might look like?

God knows the State has set up a "Rube Goldberg", convoluted, purposefully labor intensive process that does nothing to provide superior identification of prohibited persons than alternative sources like NICs. My concern is that DOJ will get away with passing off their "mess" and the Court will rubber stamp their "analysis"
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-18-2017, 3:33 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,921
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Oh and - the DOJ already has a track record of acting in bad faith. One will recall Judge Ishi giving them 6 months to prepare alternatives to the 10-day wait for selected folks and during that time they did nothing to comply.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-19-2017, 7:24 PM
HiND-SIGHT HiND-SIGHT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 231
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

That's 15mil $ should be confiscated and used to pay the costs for future dros's.
Free dros frees forever
__________________
Scrödinger's Gun Case: the serial number inside is in a state of quantum flux and can appear in different random states unrelating to how a person views it.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-30-2017, 7:52 AM
Mail Clerk Mail Clerk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
We are still in the discovery phase. Hopefully we will be ready for a dispositive motion in the next couple months. We will keep everyone updated.

Now that the DOJ has egg on there face again it might be coming out that all these laws their creating has nothing to do with safety at all but to just get money for the State of California from our pockets.

Just like the LA's red light cameras for years toting driver safety and now that they can't pay employees to process the tickets the whole issue is dropped and without anything said what happened to the safety report? Again it give us the feeling it was designed to get our money only and had noting to do with safety at all.

Mail Clerk
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-30-2017, 7:56 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,585
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Go NRA ILA...
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-30-2017, 8:33 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 783
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Would love to see the CA legislature and DOJ be found in violation of the Hobbs Act and lead to RICO charges.
__________________
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
  #64  
Old 08-30-2017, 9:27 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Can we do our own analysis to show what a reasonable fee might look like?

God knows the State has set up a "Rube Goldberg", convoluted, purposefully labor intensive process that does nothing to provide superior identification of prohibited persons than alternative sources like NICs. My concern is that DOJ will get away with passing off their "mess" and the Court will rubber stamp their "analysis"
Sure we can. A reasonable fee is $0.00. That's how much a NICS check costs, and a NICS check is all that is legally required. CA already does this as a part of their procedure.

Everything else that CA does in regard to background checks they do simply because they want to.
__________________
"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
  #65  
Old 08-30-2017, 10:33 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,921
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
Sure we can. A reasonable fee is $0.00. That's how much a NICS check costs, and a NICS check is all that is legally required. CA already does this as a part of their procedure.

Everything else that CA does in regard to background checks they do simply because they want to.
NICS doesn't want us - too many transactions will strain their infrastructure - plus CA's data is so F'd up (which is why APPS can't get warrants - their data is all F'd up)

We have to offer a solution that does not involve CA DOJ or they will kill it with incompetence
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-30-2017, 10:50 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
NICS doesn't want us - too many transactions will strain their infrastructure - plus CA's data is so F'd up (which is why APPS can't get warrants - their data is all F'd up)
NICS already has you. CA runs a NICS check in addition to all the other crap they do. It's required by federal law.

Quote:
We have to offer a solution that does not involve CA DOJ or they will kill it with incompetence
That's what I'm getting at. Get DOJ out of it and just let the FFL call NICS on the phone and get an answer in 2 or 3 minutes. That's how it's done in 40some other states. Then CA DOJ can spend their time unscrewing their records instead of making an even bigger mess.
__________________
"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

Last edited by dustoff31; 08-30-2017 at 10:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-31-2017, 2:29 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,921
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I don't know whether you addressed the part about NICS not wanting us....but okay. I'd rather pump some $$ to NICS for additional servers/broadband - it couldn't be more than cents on the firearm tranaction
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-31-2017, 3:42 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
I don't know whether you addressed the part about NICS not wanting us....but okay. I'd rather pump some $$ to NICS for additional servers/broadband - it couldn't be more than cents on the firearm tranaction
Yes, I did. It doesn't matter whether NICS wants CA or not. CA DOJ already uses NICS. NICS is required to provide the service to all states, and all states are required to use it. The service is free and is quite capable of handling CA traffic, as they already do it.

As far as NICS checks go, the only difference between you and me (CA and AZ) in that respect is that when you buy a gun, CA DOJ contacts NICS, along with all their other nonsense during the 10 day penalty box session.

In AZ, the FFL calls them up and gets an answer immediately.

The reason CA does this is because they want to. That is, they told the FBI that they wanted all NICS funneled through them. A few states do this. Some states only act as POC for handguns but not long guns.

Most states don't even get involved in it and just let the FFLs take care of it. Whichever direction is taken is entirely up to the state concerned.
__________________
"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
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 9:47 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.