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 > SPECIALTY FORUMS > FFL's Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

FFL's Forum For open discussion between FFLs and polite questions for FFLs.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-06-2021, 10:20 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Arms View Post
Since last Friday, we have been running all stripped receivers as other...
No one says you can't but is an "other" what it will become? Long gun>rifle>receiver is still available if its going to be a rifle. Or, for an LE sale, will it be a pistol?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-06-2021, 10:53 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Arms View Post
Since last Friday, we have been running all stripped receivers as other...
If you do pick "other" what category are you picking after that? What they build has to be over 30" for semi auto and not have a stock.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-06-2021, 11:05 AM
bugsy714's Avatar
bugsy714 bugsy714 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: OC/LA
Posts: 1,428
iTrader: 113 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
If you do pick "other" what category are you picking after that? What they build has to be over 30" for semi auto and not have a stock.

Doesn’t matter what you build a stripped receiver transferred as AOW into? I’m trying to figure out if I can build a pistol on in AOW receiver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-06-2021, 11:08 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsy714 View Post
Doesn’t matter what you build a stripped receiver transferred as AOW into? I’m trying to figure out if I can build a pistol on in AOW receiver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AOW's are considered long guns to begin with so i don't think you can go long gun to "other" pistol.

Ive been over this six ways to Sunday with my lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-06-2021, 11:09 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsy714 View Post
Doesn’t matter what you build a stripped receiver transferred as AOW into? I’m trying to figure out if I can build a pistol on in AOW receiver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It does matter since in the DES you have to tell DOJ what type of action it has or it won't let you submit it. Also, Other's are submitted into the long gun section of the DES
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-06-2021, 2:13 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 439
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Guys AOW =/= Title I "Other" firearm. "Other" is the term colloquially used to describe a Title I firearm other than a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, i.e. a virgin receiver, frame, or firearm that doesn't meet the legal definitions of rifle, pistol, or shotgun in some other way. An AOW is a Title II firearm, is not considered a long gun, and requires a stamp.

*Prefatory IANAL*

In a world where DES aligns with the correct definition:
- A receiver or frame should be DROSed as Other>Receiver/Frame
- A firearm with a rifled bore, barrel >16", and overall length >26", that is not a rifle should be DROSed as Other>Long Gun
- A firearm with a smooth bore and overall length >26" should be DROSed as Other Firearm

Most semiautomatic centerfire firearms in one of the above mentioned functional configurations are now considered "Assault Weapons" and can no longer be DROSed. However, I believe that frames and receivers should now be DROSed as Other>Receiver/Frame moving forward. That is, if DES is updated to reflect the categories correctly, as they are on the 4473.

Last edited by seaweedsoyboy; 10-06-2021 at 2:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-06-2021, 2:31 PM
Tyke8319's Avatar
Tyke8319 Tyke8319 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The State of Jefferson
Posts: 1,516
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can think of far more "semiautomatic center fire firearms in a functional configuration" that are legal and that are not AW's than I can true (as defined) AW"s...
__________________
American soldier by choice. Made in America by the Grace of God.

So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.
Judge Roger T. Benitez
LCM's ruled legal 3/29/2019
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-06-2021, 2:33 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 439
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyke8319 View Post
I can think of far more "semiautomatic center fire firearms in a functional configuration" that are legal and that are not AW's than I can true (as defined) AW"s...
Sorry, meant *in a functional configuration included in the above. Editing comment now
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-06-2021, 8:27 PM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
AOW's are considered long guns to begin with so i don't think you can go long gun to "other" pistol.



Ive been over this six ways to Sunday with my lawyer.
These are both AOW's. Are these considered long guns?




Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-07-2021, 10:05 AM
CM Arms CM Arms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
If you do pick "other" what category are you picking after that? What they build has to be over 30" for semi auto and not have a stock.
A receiver by definition is an "Other" on a 4473. We do other Semi-Automatic, and how the customer builds it after that is up to them as long as they remain compliant.
__________________
CM Arms
593 E Los Angeles Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065
(310) 431-9546
Email: Info @ CM-Arms . Com
Website: CM-Arms.com
Google: Maps
Facebook: cm.arms.c.o.m
Instagram: cm.arms

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-08-2021, 7:02 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Arms View Post
A receiver by definition is an "Other" on a 4473. We do other Semi-Automatic, and how the customer builds it after that is up to them as long as they remain compliant.
I’m asking this because we are CA dealers. I’m not asking the following to be argumentative. BUT! Don’t you see a problem with what you’re checking in DROS? When you and customer sign under penalty/perjury?

Your signing two government forms about the same gun with different descriptions under penalty/perjury.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-08-2021, 7:05 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
These are both AOW's. Are these considered long guns?




Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
Doesn’t matter. They are both illegal in California. Instead of TRYING to be so smart and arguing, take into context of what the state is really doing and focus on that.

It’s the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, who has categorized “other” as long gun!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-08-2021, 7:23 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Doesn’t matter. They are both illegal in California. Instead of TRYING to be so smart and arguing, take into context of what the state is really doing and focus on that.



It’s the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, who has categorized “other” as long gun!
Actually they are not illegal in California. Maybe you should do a little more research on them. That Taurus is from OC Armory and they sell them to regular people in California.

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-08-2021, 9:03 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
Actually they are not illegal in California. Maybe you should do a little more research on them. That Taurus is from OC Armory and they sell them to regular people in California.

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
What part of long gun don’t you get?

The DOJ has determined “other” must be submitted as a long gun.

How can OC Armory sell that if they are no longer in business. If that’s a judge shooting 410, it’s a SBS in CA. What revolver is that?

Last edited by taperxz; 10-08-2021 at 9:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-08-2021, 9:17 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 2,423
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What part of long gun don’t you get?

The DOJ has determined “other” must be submitted as a long gun.

How can OC Armory sell that if they are no longer in business. If that’s a judge shooting 410, it’s a SBS in CA. What revolver is that?
Aren't they both AoWs? Last I looked AoWs overcome some of the restrictions.

Edit: sorry, didn't realize this was the FFL forum. I'm not an FFL, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn sometime in the last couple years...

Last edited by mej16489; 10-08-2021 at 9:18 AM.. Reason: Ooops FFL Forum
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-08-2021, 9:43 AM
CM Arms CM Arms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I’m asking this because we are CA dealers. I’m not asking the following to be argumentative. BUT! Don’t you see a problem with what you’re checking in DROS? When you and customer sign under penalty/perjury?

Your signing two government forms about the same gun with different descriptions under penalty/perjury.
I understand what you're saying, and I do appreciate the educational discussion between dealers.

Regardless of what the CADOJ says a stripped receiver does not meet the definition of a rifle or shotgun, and the fact that for years that we've had to designate them as such is absolute ignorance on their part.

Now that there is an other option logging it as such with a Receiver Only subcategory is as proper as we can get. The fact that they require us to also choose a type of action is again ignorant on their part as a receiver does not meet that definition either.
__________________
CM Arms
593 E Los Angeles Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065
(310) 431-9546
Email: Info @ CM-Arms . Com
Website: CM-Arms.com
Google: Maps
Facebook: cm.arms.c.o.m
Instagram: cm.arms

Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-08-2021, 12:09 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Arms View Post
I understand what you're saying, and I do appreciate the educational discussion between dealers.

Regardless of what the CADOJ says a stripped receiver does not meet the definition of a rifle or shotgun, and the fact that for years that we've had to designate them as such is absolute ignorance on their part.

Now that there is an other option logging it as such with a Receiver Only subcategory is as proper as we can get. The fact that they require us to also choose a type of action is again ignorant on their part as a receiver does not meet that definition either.
I get all that. All I’m saying is that DOJ makes us declare under penalty/perjury what exactly we are DROSing is and under their terms.

This forces us to declare two different things for the same firearm under penalty/perjury on two different government documents for one firearm. We all know what it is!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-08-2021, 4:46 PM
CM Arms CM Arms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I get all that. All I’m saying is that DOJ makes us declare under penalty/perjury what exactly we are DROSing is and under their terms.

This forces us to declare two different things for the same firearm under penalty/perjury on two different government documents for one firearm. We all know what it is!
I guess what I was trying to say was that because of the DOJs ignorance, we have been lying on those forms for all those years, and we're now still lying (well, potentially) just not as much.
__________________
CM Arms
593 E Los Angeles Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065
(310) 431-9546
Email: Info @ CM-Arms . Com
Website: CM-Arms.com
Google: Maps
Facebook: cm.arms.c.o.m
Instagram: cm.arms

Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-08-2021, 6:26 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Arms View Post
I guess what I was trying to say was that because of the DOJs ignorance, we have been lying on those forms for all those years, and we're now still lying (well, potentially) just not as much.
We’re not lying. We are being forced by DOJ to input the wrong information on a legal not prohibited firearm.

For the most part, we’re saying the same thing in a different way
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-09-2021, 5:14 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What part of long gun don’t you get?

The DOJ has determined “other” must be submitted as a long gun.

How can OC Armory sell that if they are no longer in business. If that’s a judge shooting 410, it’s a SBS in CA. What revolver is that?
Okay, let me back up.

I completely understand that this thread was started to discuss the addition of the Title I OTHER to the DROS software. I also completely understand that there is some confusion or uncertainty in what the CA DOJ's interpretation is of a Title I OTHER. And, I completely understand that you are under the impression that the DOJ's interpretation of a Title I OTHER is a long gun.

My problem is that you and others posting here are using the term "AOW". A Title I OTHER is NOT known as an "AOW". An "AOW" is a Title II Any Other Weapon, which is completely different than a Title I OTHER.

You made a post saying that all "AOW's" are long guns. I posted two pictures of completely different firearms that are Federally defined as Title II Any Other Weapon, commonly referred to as an AOW.

You replied that it didn't matter because both of those firearms were illegal in California. You said that if that revolver is designed to shoot .410 shotgun shells it was a SBS, which is a Title II Short Barreled Shotgun.

That post showed your lack of understanding what an AOW is, what a SBS is under Federal law and how they apply under California law.

I'll break it down for you. The firearms pictured if in their original configuration are classified as Title I firearms. The little pump action "shotgun" looking thing is classified as a Title I OTHER because it does not meet the definition of a Title I Shotgun AND it doesn't meet the definition of a Title II Short Barreled Shotgun.

The revolver is classified as Title I Revolver as it doesn't meet the definition of a Title I Shotgun or a Title II Short Barreled Shotgun.

In their original configuration both of these firearms would meet the California definition of a Short Barreled Shotgun. But, in the pictures they are configured as an AOW. I posted these to show you that you were incorrect in saying that all AOW's are long guns. In fact if it's the complete opposite, please refer to the great explanation posted by someone else above.

So, on to your lack of understanding how AOW's work in California law. There are several exemptions to various laws. One of those exemptions is for certain Title II Any Other Weapons. One of those certain Title II Any Other Weapons are firearms that would otherwise be classified as a Short Barreled Shotgun under California law.

Also, from your comment that because you thought that was a Short Barreled Shotgun it sounds like you are under the impression that ALL Short Barreled Shotguns are illegal in California. If you do than you'd be incorrect on that.

In fact certain Title II Short Barreled Shotguns and Title II Short Barreled Rifles are completely legal to be transferred to any person in California. I'm sure you're probably thinking that I have no idea what I'm talking about. That's okay.

This post will take you though the information.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ad.php?t=82693

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”

Last edited by morrcarr67; 10-09-2021 at 5:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-09-2021, 9:54 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
Okay, let me back up.

I completely understand that this thread was started to discuss the addition of the Title I OTHER to the DROS software. I also completely understand that there is some confusion or uncertainty in what the CA DOJ's interpretation is of a Title I OTHER. And, I completely understand that you are under the impression that the DOJ's interpretation of a Title I OTHER is a long gun.

My problem is that you and others posting here are using the term "AOW". A Title I OTHER is NOT known as an "AOW". An "AOW" is a Title II Any Other Weapon, which is completely different than a Title I OTHER.

You made a post saying that all "AOW's" are long guns. I posted two pictures of completely different firearms that are Federally defined as Title II Any Other Weapon, commonly referred to as an AOW.

You replied that it didn't matter because both of those firearms were illegal in California. You said that if that revolver is designed to shoot .410 shotgun shells it was a SBS, which is a Title II Short Barreled Shotgun.

That post showed your lack of understanding what an AOW is, what a SBS is under Federal law and how they apply under California law.

I'll break it down for you. The firearms pictured if in their original configuration are classified as Title I firearms. The little pump action "shotgun" looking thing is classified as a Title I OTHER because it does not meet the definition of a Title I Shotgun AND it doesn't meet the definition of a Title II Short Barreled Shotgun.

The revolver is classified as Title I Revolver as it doesn't meet the definition of a Title I Shotgun or a Title II Short Barreled Shotgun.

In their original configuration both of these firearms would meet the California definition of a Short Barreled Shotgun. But, in the pictures they are configured as an AOW. I posted these to show you that you were incorrect in saying that all AOW's are long guns. In fact if it's the complete opposite, please refer to the great explanation posted by someone else above.

So, on to your lack of understanding how AOW's work in California law. There are several exemptions to various laws. One of those exemptions is for certain Title II Any Other Weapons. One of those certain Title II Any Other Weapons are firearms that would otherwise be classified as a Short Barreled Shotgun under California law.

Also, from your comment that because you thought that was a Short Barreled Shotgun it sounds like you are under the impression that ALL Short Barreled Shotguns are illegal in California. If you do than you'd be incorrect on that.

In fact certain Title II Short Barreled Shotguns and Title II Short Barreled Rifles are completely legal to be transferred to any person in California. I'm sure you're probably thinking that I have no idea what I'm talking about. That's okay.

This post will take you though the information.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ad.php?t=82693

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
Where did i ever say AOW? We are using the term "other" only because thats how the state has termed it under "long Guns" in the DES.

In the FFL forum, you are trying to project stuff that no one here is talking about. We are laser focused on what DOJ has to say about their new addition to the DES. No one here is talking about NFA tax stamps.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-09-2021, 9:58 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
AOW's are considered long guns to begin with so i don't think you can go long gun to "other" pistol.

Ive been over this six ways to Sunday with my lawyer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Where did i ever say AOW?
See your post above. Then go back and read some of the other post. More than one poster has used the term AOW.

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-09-2021, 11:14 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
See your post above. Then go back and read some of the other post. More than one poster has used the term AOW.

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk
You completely ignored the fact that we are talking about the bulletin put out by DOJ and what it means for CA FFLs. What YOU are missing is Any Other Weapon does not work for how DOJ defines "other" in the long gun drop down and how CA FFL's are supposed to understand whats legal and whats not.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-10-2021, 9:30 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You completely ignored the fact that we are talking about the bulletin put out by DOJ and what it means for CA FFLs.
No I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post

I completely understand that this thread was started to discuss the addition of the Title I OTHER to the DROS software.
Here is the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What YOU are missing is Any Other Weapon does not work for how DOJ defines "other" in the long gun drop down and how CA FFL's are supposed to understand whats legal and whats not.
Since you know that the term Any Other Weapon commonly referred to as AOW has nothing to do with the way the CA DOJ has implemented the Title I Other into DROS software. Why then when Bugsy incorrectly used the term in his post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsy714 View Post
Doesn’t matter what you build a stripped receiver transferred as AOW into? I’m trying to figure out if I can build a pistol on in AOW receiver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you reply using the same incorrect terminology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
AOW's are considered long guns to begin with so i don't think you can go long gun to "other" pistol.

Ive been over this six ways to Sunday with my lawyer.
If we who are not firearms dealers (I do hold an FFL) are to take what you are saying and learn from it. Shouldn't it be expected that we hold those who are firearms dealers to give us the best and most accurate information? And, doesn't it mean when those who do not do so, shouldn't they be questioned?
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-10-2021, 3:39 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post


If we who are not firearms dealers (I do hold an FFL) are to take what you are saying and learn from it. Shouldn't it be expected that we hold those who are firearms dealers to give us the best and most accurate information? And, doesn't it mean when those who do not do so, shouldn't they be questioned?
No CA FFL know for sure. Our lawyers don’t either. That’s why the rest of us are having a conversation about what this means and what it doesn’t mean. Which means you have no clue either. You clearly don’t use the DES system so how could you? In fact, you don’t have the first idea of what I’m talking about. I was a part of this actual lawsuit that got DOJ to add “ other” in the DES but only under the Long Gun drop down in the DES. A long gun must have a 16” or 18” barrel under CA law.

While you’re trying to make your case, us FFLs are trying to not sign a document falsely when DROS is submitted. DOJ, with how they did this, actually makes us do it wrong to comply with what they want. Which means the 4473 and DROS don’t even match when DROS is submitted.

It’s interesting watching consumers clamor about how much they think they know but have no clue as to what DOJ REGULATIONS require us to do and how to interpret what they want.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-12-2021, 5:21 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post

It’s interesting watching consumers clamor about how much they think they know but have no clue as to what DOJ REGULATIONS require us to do and how to interpret what they want.

The same can be said about some dealers. There are post on what seems a daily basis from a community member saying my LGS told me this: ?????? Is that right? Only to be completely wrong.
I have just one more question for you.

Since this whole thing started with me checking you when you used the wrong term while talking about something that it didn't pertain too.

Going forward; when you error again, what do you want the community to do? Do you want to be checked or do you want the community to take what you say as being correct?
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-12-2021, 9:49 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
I have just one more question for you.

Since this whole thing started with me checking you when you used the wrong term while talking about something that it didn't pertain too.

Going forward; when you error again, what do you want the community to do? Do you want to be checked or do you want the community to take what you say as being correct?
So now you are just obtuse. Isn't it convinient for you to leave out the part where i said the lawyers still haven't figured all this out.

Are you going to make yourself feel good and think you won something here?

What is your experience using the DES system and dealing with DOJ on this particular matter again? You won't answer! You have none
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-12-2021, 10:20 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
So now you are just obtuse. Isn't it convinient for you to leave out the part where i said the lawyers still haven't figured all this out.

Are you going to make yourself feel good and think you won something here?

What is your experience using the DES system and dealing with DOJ on this particular matter again? You won't answer! You have none
I'm not being obtuse. I left out the part of the lawyers not figuring this out because it has nothing to do with the fact that you used the term AOW incorrectly. That term has had a very specific meaning since 1934, so the lawyers working on the current issue will probably never use the term AOW because they know it has nothing to do with the matter at had.

I never felt bad or good about this conversation. I was just trying to point out to you your error. You are the one that seems to have a problem with that and this whole conversation. I just don't know if it's because you were checked or if it is because I checked you. Though it also seems that you are unable to admit that you used the term incorrectly, and I can't figure that out.

As for your question about my knowledge about the DES system and this issue you are 100% correct. I have now clue about how this new addition of the Title 1 Other to the DES system works. That is exactly why I started to read this thread. I wanted to learn all I could about from the people who are in the know about it.

I still want to learn all I can about it. But, I bet a new thread on this has been started behind closed doors. So, who knows what knowledge will be gained from this thread.
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-12-2021, 2:13 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
I'm not being obtuse. I left out the part of the lawyers not figuring this out because it has nothing to do with the fact that you used the term AOW incorrectly. That term has had a very specific meaning since 1934, so the lawyers working on the current issue will probably never use the term AOW because they know it has nothing to do with the matter at had.

I never felt bad or good about this conversation. I was just trying to point out to you your error. You are the one that seems to have a problem with that and this whole conversation. I just don't know if it's because you were checked or if it is because I checked you. Though it also seems that you are unable to admit that you used the term incorrectly, and I can't figure that out.

As for your question about my knowledge about the DES system and this issue you are 100% correct. I have now clue about how this new addition of the Title 1 Other to the DES system works. That is exactly why I started to read this thread. I wanted to learn all I could about from the people who are in the know about it.

I still want to learn all I can about it. But, I bet a new thread on this has been started behind closed doors. So, who knows what knowledge will be gained from this thread.
Thats what you're missing. DOJ should have included a separate icon for AOW. The point is they didn't. They make us do "other" in the long gun drop down of the DES.

Thanks for admitting you don't know. Because you don't know, I'm trying to explain to you the issues of what DOJ did. There should be AOW but they didn't properly classify AOW in the drop down. Thats the issue
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-12-2021, 2:16 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
I'm not being obtuse. I left out the part of the lawyers not figuring this out because it has nothing to do with the fact that you used the term AOW incorrectly. That term has had a very specific meaning since 1934, so the lawyers working on the current issue will probably never use the term AOW because they know it has nothing to do with the matter at had.

I never felt bad or good about this conversation. I was just trying to point out to you your error. You are the one that seems to have a problem with that and this whole conversation. I just don't know if it's because you were checked or if it is because I checked you. Though it also seems that you are unable to admit that you used the term incorrectly, and I can't figure that out.

As for your question about my knowledge about the DES system and this issue you are 100% correct. I have now clue about how this new addition of the Title 1 Other to the DES system works. That is exactly why I started to read this thread. I wanted to learn all I could about from the people who are in the know about it.

I still want to learn all I can about it. But, I bet a new thread on this has been started behind closed doors. So, who knows what knowledge will be gained from this thread.
Read this and you will get the idea. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1662841&page=2
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-12-2021, 3:48 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 439
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Thats what you're missing. DOJ should have included a separate icon for AOW. The point is they didn't. They make us do "other" in the long gun drop down of the DES.

Thanks for admitting you don't know. Because you don't know, I'm trying to explain to you the issues of what DOJ did. There should be AOW but they didn't properly classify AOW in the drop down. Thats the issue
Because AOWs are considered pistols under CA PC, not others.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-13-2021, 8:49 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Read this and you will get the idea. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1662841&page=2
It will be some time, but I'll check it out and circle back.
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-13-2021, 8:51 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 12,991
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
Because AOWs are considered pistols under CA PC, not others.
And that make sense seeing as an AOW is classified as a weapon being able to be concealed on the body.
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-13-2021, 10:22 PM
Skybot's Avatar
Skybot Skybot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 125
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklinarmory View Post
Oh, change is coming...

What you missed is that a certain state agency managed to, yet again, fail to fully grasp the paradigm. Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.

Due to ongoing litigation, I can't be any more specific.
So does this mean that Soon I will be getting my Title 1 in the Mail??? Ha Ha

but really, I will I be able to dros my Title 1 I have on back order, soon????

Please say....."YES"
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 2:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical