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 > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-21-2019, 8:46 AM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default LGS not doing ammo transfers

Is it required for LGS to do private ammo transfer? Because all 3 LGS on peninsula refuse to do it. So basically the law says to sell ammo to someone here I need to go to a LGS who all refuse...

Edit: Peninsula Guns & Tactical, City Arms, and Coyote Point Armory all say they don’t do private ammo transfers because “the law is not clearly spelled out”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...2.&lawCode=PEN
Looks pretty clear.. sounds like they don’t want to be hassled so they can sell their own ammo at higher prices.
All 3 just lost my business

Last edited by Amac1989; 09-21-2019 at 9:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-21-2019, 8:47 AM
baranski's Avatar
baranski baranski is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: South Vista
Posts: 2,866
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Is there an IDR near you?

Likely they will do it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-21-2019, 8:50 AM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I guess San Jose or San Leandro.. I doubt coyote point will and the hours are so limited. South city was the best but that was closed down sadly..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-21-2019, 9:45 AM
Jericho261 Jericho261 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

PPT transfer of ammo through a FFL dealer, LMAO !!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:10 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,896
iTrader: 161 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
Is it required for LGS to do private ammo transfer? Because all 3 LGS on peninsula refuse to do it. So basically the law says to sell ammo to someone here I need to go to a LGS who all refuse...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho261 View Post
PPT transfer of ammo through a FFL dealer, LMAO !!
Some laws are ripe for a protest and civil disobedience is one option.

Illegal immigrants disobey our nation’s immigration laws every day when they cross the border into CA, and our state welcomes them with open arms. Go figure

PS - you should let CRPA and Michel Lawyers know about this - they can incorporate it into the lawsuits against the state. A person should not have to drive 100 - 200 miles to sell $15 worth of 22LR ammo.
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 09-21-2019 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:13 AM
sfarchitect's Avatar
sfarchitect sfarchitect is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

This is the entire PPT thing redux. The darned FFL's wanted that business. They fought like hell to ensure we all had to do PPT's via some local FFL. Now so many of them get annoyed and indignant and act you're wasting their time when you ask them to do one?!

Same idea, same BS, new decade, new level of absurdity.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:19 AM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,530
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

In a private party to private party transfer who knows about the transfer but the two private consenting partners unless the parties bring in an FFL to charge money to do nothing really. who knows how much ammunition you have, what you shot, what you lost, an what you threw away or sold? we are becoming like the Japanese who expect to be caught so they are. Nobody in their right mind is going to confess to buying ammo without going through an FFL and if you don't squeal on each other who knows what you did? You heard the old saying about what goes on behind closed doors stays there. the down side is that if the buyer or seller is a DOJ agent then you might get your hand slapped. Know who you are selling to or buying from. use common sense. because it is a law does not make it right and civil disobedience is sometimes a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:30 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,434
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
Is it required for LGS to do private ammo transfer?
Nope.

Even though there is a legal requirement to utilize a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to facilitate the private party transfer of ammunition [PC 30312(a)(2)], there is no legal requirement for a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to conduct the private party transfer of ammunition.

Which means, unlike the private party transfer of firearms, it is CA legal for a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to refuse to facilitate the private party transfer of ammunition.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 09-21-2019 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:51 AM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

It’s funny because in one subsection you can “give” ammo to a range buddy or friend so long as it’s not for MONEY, and so long as you REASONABLY BELIEVE they are not prohibited.
What the...
So I can give my ammo to anyone anywhere I just can’t sell it to them anywhere.. only in this state smh
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:53 AM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,096
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

time to illegally knock the middle man out of the equation? sounds like a problem between FFL's/vendors and DOJ. Who admits to money exchanging hands?

Last edited by big red; 09-21-2019 at 10:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:55 AM
tigerpan tigerpan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Pomona
Posts: 1,510
iTrader: 31 / 97%
Default

If they can’t do it, that’s means you don’t need ffl to do the transfer.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:56 AM
Jess B. Guy Jess B. Guy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 279
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:10 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,434
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
It’s funny because in one subsection you can “give” ammo to a range buddy or friend so long as it’s not for MONEY, and so long as you REASONABLY BELIEVE they are not prohibited.
What the...
So I can give my ammo to anyone anywhere I just can’t sell it to them anywhere.. only in this state smh
Nothing you stated is factually correct.

Only exemptions to the requirement to utilize a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer of ownership of ammunition are: [PC 30312(c)]
01. Transfer by Gov/Mil/LE employee with written authorization from their Gov/Mil/LE agency to obtain the ammunition for use by the Gov/Mil/LE agency. [PC 30312(c)(1)]
02. Transfer to a LEO. [PC 30312(c)(2)]
03. Transfer to a Type 05, 06, 07, 08, 10, & 11 FFL. [PC 30312(c)(3)]
04. Transfer to a CA FFL dealer. [PC 30312(c)(4)]
05. Transfer to a non-resident Type 03-FFL. [PC 30312(c)(5)]
06. Transfer to a CA resident Type 03-FFL with a valid COE. [PC 30312(c)(6)]
07. Transfer to a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor. [PC 30312(c)(7)]
08. Transfer to a "consultant-evaluator". [PC 30312(c)(8)]
09. Transfer to a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member. [PC 30312(c)(9)]
10. Transfer to a LE academy recruit/student or LE academy staff. [PC 30312(c)(10)]




Penal Code 30312
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to any of the following:
(1) An authorized law enforcement representative of a city, county, city and county, or state or federal government, if the sale, delivery, or transfer is for exclusive use by that government agency and, prior to the sale, delivery, or transfer of the ammunition, written authorization from the head of the agency employing the purchaser or transferee is obtained, identifying the employee as an individual authorized to conduct the transaction, and authorizing the transaction for the exclusive use of the agency employing the individual.
(2) A sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or sworn federal law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the officer’s duties.
(3) An importer or manufacturer of ammunition or firearms who is licensed to engage in business pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(4) A person who is on the centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees maintained by the Department of Justice pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 28450) of Chapter 6 of Division 6 of this title.
(5) A person whose licensed premises are outside this state and who is licensed as a dealer or collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(6) A person who is licensed as a collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, whose licensed premises are within this state, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26710.
(7) An ammunition vendor.
(8) A consultant-evaluator.
(9) A person who purchases or receives ammunition at a target facility holding a business or other regulatory license, provided that the ammunition is at all times kept within the facility’s premises.
(10) A person who purchases or receives ammunition from a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member as defined in Section 16720.
(11) A person enrolled in the basic training academy for peace officers or any other course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, an instructor of the academy or course, or a staff member of the academy or entity providing the course, who is purchasing the ammunition for the purpose of participation or use in the course.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:27 AM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Nothing you stated is factually correct.

Only exemptions to the requirement to utilize a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer of ownership of ammunition are: [PC 30312(c)]
01. Transfer by Gov/Mil/LE employee with written authorization from their Gov/Mil/LE agency to obtain the ammunition for use by the Gov/Mil/LE agency. [PC 30312(c)(1)]
02. Transfer to a LEO. [PC 30312(c)(2)]
03. Transfer to a Type 05, 06, 07, 08, 10, & 11 FFL. [PC 30312(c)(3)]
04. Transfer to a CA FFL dealer. [PC 30312(c)(4)]
05. Transfer to a non-resident Type 03-FFL. [PC 30312(c)(5)]
06. Transfer to a CA resident Type 03-FFL with a valid COE. [PC 30312(c)(6)]
07. Transfer to a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor. [PC 30312(c)(7)]
08. Transfer to a "consultant-evaluator". [PC 30312(c)(8)]
09. Transfer to a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member. [PC 30312(c)(9)]
10. Transfer to a LE academy recruit/student or LE academy staff. [PC 30312(c)(10)]




Penal Code 30312
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to any of the following:
(1) An authorized law enforcement representative of a city, county, city and county, or state or federal government, if the sale, delivery, or transfer is for exclusive use by that government agency and, prior to the sale, delivery, or transfer of the ammunition, written authorization from the head of the agency employing the purchaser or transferee is obtained, identifying the employee as an individual authorized to conduct the transaction, and authorizing the transaction for the exclusive use of the agency employing the individual.
(2) A sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or sworn federal law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the officer’s duties.
(3) An importer or manufacturer of ammunition or firearms who is licensed to engage in business pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(4) A person who is on the centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees maintained by the Department of Justice pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 28450) of Chapter 6 of Division 6 of this title.
(5) A person whose licensed premises are outside this state and who is licensed as a dealer or collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(6) A person who is licensed as a collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, whose licensed premises are within this state, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26710.
(7) An ammunition vendor.
(8) A consultant-evaluator.
(9) A person who purchases or receives ammunition at a target facility holding a business or other regulatory license, provided that the ammunition is at all times kept within the facility’s premises.
(10) A person who purchases or receives ammunition from a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member as defined in Section 16720.
(11) A person enrolled in the basic training academy for peace officers or any other course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, an instructor of the academy or course, or a staff member of the academy or entity providing the course, who is purchasing the ammunition for the purpose of participation or use in the course.
When I get to my computer I’ll be doing more reading. You may be correct. I got the information here
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/ammun...in-california/
Reference 19 : prop 63 pc 30306

However reading through prop 63 document, I don’t see sharing spelled out.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:40 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,896
iTrader: 161 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
It’s funny because in one subsection you can “give” ammo to a range buddy or friend so long as it’s not for MONEY, and so long as you REASONABLY BELIEVE they are not prohibited.
What the...
So I can give my ammo to anyone anywhere I just can’t sell it to them anywhere.. only in this state smh

Quote:
Originally Posted by big red View Post
time to illegally knock the middle man out of the equation? sounds like a problem between FFL's/vendors and DOJ. Who admits to money exchanging hands?
I only ask for ‘roses’ when I list my ammo
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-21-2019, 12:06 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,889
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I mean why not take to Needles to do it and while there make the trip worthwhile and do a parking lot ppt gun transfer as in most other states. Aren't they a 2A sanctuary city? No?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-21-2019, 12:45 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,434
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
When I get to my computer I’ll be doing more reading. You may be correct. I got the information here
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/ammun...in-california/
Reference 19 : prop 63 pc 30306

However reading through prop 63 document, I don’t see sharing spelled out.
Fun fact.

PC 30306 is redundant laws that were already covered under PC 30300 & 30305 and 18 USC 922(d).

They included it to show sheeple that Prop 63 would prohibit transferring ammo to prohibited persons (effective 11-06-16), before the ammo background check laws go into effect (07-01-19).
But, they also did not disclose that this was already prohibited under exisiting Federal and CA laws.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 09-21-2019 at 12:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-21-2019, 1:35 PM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,445
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho261 View Post
PPT transfer of ammo through a FFL dealer, LMAO !!
same, I don't know why anyone in Cali would obey the law

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Some laws are ripe for a protest and civil disobedience is one option.

Illegal immigrants disobey our nation’s immigration laws every day when they cross the border into CA, and our state welcomes them with open arms. Go figure

PS - you should let CRPA and Michel Lawyers know about this - they can incorporate it into the lawsuits against the state. A person should not have to drive 100 - 200 miles to sell $15 worth of 22LR ammo.

Troof
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-21-2019, 3:39 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,076
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
When I get to my computer I’ll be doing more reading. You may be correct. I got the information here
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/ammun...in-california/
Reference 19 : prop 63 pc 30306

However reading through prop 63 document, I don’t see sharing spelled out.
You cannot rely on proposition language to reflect what is actually in the Penal Code. In the case of Prop 63, there were (I believe) two bills passed in the legislature that pre-emptively changed the results of Prop 63 passing. Often the proposition language is what we get, but Prop 63 was a mess.

The mavens at the state combined existing PC, bill results, and Prop 63 results - according to some arcane rules I cannot follow - and the (ammo-relevant) results are at the official codes web site at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...r=1.&article=2.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 09-21-2019 at 3:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-21-2019, 3:43 PM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
You cannot rely on proposition language to reflect what is actually in the Penal Code. In the case of Prop 63, there were (I believe) two bills passed in the legislature that pre-emptively changed the results of Prop 63 passing. Often the proposition language is what we get, but Prop 63 was a mess.

The mavens at the state combined existing PC, bill results, and Prop 63 results - according to some arcane rules I cannot follow - and the results are at the official codes web site at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...r=1.&article=2.
Just reading the Prop 63 document was hard because so many paragraphs had things crossed out and re-written.

I'm far from a lawyer and really haven't even tried interpreting laws... but wow is California gun law complicated...
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-21-2019, 3:47 PM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Side question regarding FFL law:

Since FFL are required to process PPT based on inventory (i.e. if they also sell handguns they shall process handgun PPT), are they allowed to require an appointment?

I called Sportsman's Arms in Petaluma a few hours before driving from the peninsula to do a PPT. They never said anything about appointments. I get there and these 2 guys were total jerks. They kept talking over me saying I never called, and if I had they definitely would have told me to make one. Needless to say I will never be returning. I drove 2 1/2 hours.. luckily Petaluma Reloading Supply processed it.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-21-2019, 3:49 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 13,114
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Big 5 asks that you call first to verify that appropriate personnel are on hand for transaction.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-21-2019, 3:56 PM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edgerly779 View Post
Big 5 asks that you call first to verify that appropriate personnel are on hand for transaction.
Don't get me started on Big 5... They said they require BOTH managers to complete the transaction, who are only there certain days and times of the week. Why would you need 2 people to do the paperwork? Either the person doing it knows or does not know how to process. I find that in Big 5/ Sportsman's Warehouse etc. the staff are very undertrained and extremely slow.
Sportsman's Warehouse in Fairfield and Reed's Indoor in San Jose seemed to double the paperwork compared to other shops. I had to give my thumbprint 5 times in Fairfield.

EDIT: Having been to FFL all over the bay in the last few months, I realize how much different everybody does it. I'm sure I'm not alone wishing there was a more standard process.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-21-2019, 4:00 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 13,114
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Not at my big 5 in Canoga park. Turners has another person verify docs. Gretas did the same on Thursday.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-21-2019, 4:03 PM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edgerly779 View Post
Not at my big 5 in Canoga park. Turners has another person verify docs. Gretas did the same on Thursday.
The Big 5 I experienced this at was in Davis.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-21-2019, 4:05 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 13,114
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

The big 5 in Glendale has the 2 person verification.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-21-2019, 5:20 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,194
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Nope.

Even though there is a legal requirement to utilize a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to facilitate the private party transfer of ammunition [PC 30312(a)(2)], there is no legal requirement for a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to conduct the private party transfer of ammunition.

Which means, unlike the private party transfer of firearms, it is CA legal for a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to refuse to facilitate the private party transfer of ammunition.
I respectfully disagree with your reading of PC-3012. As I believe, the legislature also does.


Quote:
30312.
(a) (1) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale of ammunition by any party shall be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

(2) When neither party to an ammunition sale is a licensed ammunition vendor, the seller shall deliver the ammunition to a vendor to process the transaction. The ammunition vendor shall promptly and properly deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, if the sale is not prohibited, as if the ammunition were the vendor’s own merchandise.

If the ammunition vendor cannot legally deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, the vendor shall forthwith return the ammunition to the seller. The ammunition vendor may charge the purchaser an administrative fee to process the transaction, in an amount to be set by the Department of Justice, in addition to any applicable fees that may be charged pursuant to the provisions of this title.
The contextual use of "SHALL" in PC-30312(a)(2), in relation to both sellers and vendors, makes it an IMPERATIVE statement for both.

Also of note to this discussion is Ca PC-30312 (b) related to the underlined in (a) (2).

Quote:
(b) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale, delivery, or transfer of ownership of ammunition by any party may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, deliverer, or transferor, provided, however, that ammunition may be purchased or acquired over the Internet or through other means of remote ordering if a licensed ammunition vendor initially receives the ammunition and processes the transaction
in compliance with this section and Article 3 (commencing with Section 30342) of Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4 of this part.
Making it also "clear" that FACE to FACE transactions are NOT MANDATORY, as long as OTHER MEANS of ordering and delivery to "vendor" are utilized.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-21-2019, 5:28 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,622
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

It’s a shame that the person you’re selling the ammo to is going to call the police or report you to the DOJ if you don’t go through an FFL. Gavin Newsom really has us now.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-21-2019, 5:37 PM
Hinnerk's Avatar
Hinnerk Hinnerk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: East SF Bay
Posts: 710
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Amac 1989 wrote I got the information here
"https://lawcenter.giffords.org/ammun...in-california/
Reference 19 : prop 63 pc 30306".

The law of the land is what matters and not what is written in the text of some proposition or some unofficial web site.

Heck! I once raised an objection in court based on a local rule published on the Court's web site. Unbeknownst to me the local rules had recently been overruled by the Supreme Court!

If it ain't written in the Code and not contradictory to Case Law, it ain't the law.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-21-2019, 6:38 PM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hinnerk View Post
Amac 1989 wrote I got the information here
"https://lawcenter.giffords.org/ammun...in-california/
Reference 19 : prop 63 pc 30306".

The law of the land is what matters and not what is written in the text of some proposition or some unofficial web site.

Heck! I once raised an objection in court based on a local rule published on the Court's web site. Unbeknownst to me the local rules had recently been overruled by the Supreme Court!

If it ain't written in the Code and not contradictory to Case Law, it ain't the law.
Right, we already covered that and moved on. See Librarian's post above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
I respectfully disagree with your reading of PC-3012. As I believe, the legislature also does.




The contextual use of "SHALL" in PC-30312(a)(2), in relation to both sellers and vendors, makes it an IMPERATIVE statement for both.

Also of note to this discussion is Ca PC-30312 (b) related to the underlined in (a) (2).



Making it also "clear" that FACE to FACE transactions are NOT MANDATORY, as long as OTHER MEANS of ordering and delivery to "vendor" are utilized.
This is how I interpreted it, but interested in the replies to come.

Last edited by Amac1989; 09-21-2019 at 6:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-21-2019, 7:14 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,136
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
When I get to my computer I’ll be doing more reading. You may be correct. I got the information here
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/ammun...in-california/
Reference 19 : prop 63 pc 30306

However reading through prop 63 document, I don’t see sharing spelled out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Fun fact.

PC 30306 is redundant laws that were already covered under PC 30300 & 30305 and 18 USC 922(d).

They included it to show sheeple that Prop 63 would prohibit transferring ammo to prohibited persons (effective 11-06-16), before the ammo background check laws go into effect (07-01-19).
But, they also did not disclose that this was already prohibited under exisiting Federal and CA laws.
Fun Fact...SB 1235 screwed us.

Proposition 63 (Page 172, Left Column) contained the following language:
Quote:
Article 4. Ammunition Purchase Authorizations 30370. (a) (1) Commencing on January 1, 2019, any person who is 18 years of age or older may apply to the Department of Justice for an ammunition purchase authorization.
That was the language for the much publicized "Ammo License Cards". But, there was no control placed on transfers by the original language of the Proposition other than they had to be Face-to-Face, so it had no impact on the language of the Proposition's version of CA PC Section 30312.
Quote:
SEC. 8.6. Section 30312 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30312. (a) Commencing February 1, 2011, the (1) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale of ammunition by any party shall be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.
(2) When neither party to an ammunition sale is a licensed ammunition vendor, the seller shall deliver the ammunition to a vendor to process the transaction. [...]
(b) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale, delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition by any party may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, deliverer, or transferor....
The Giffords Group correctly stated that under the language of the Proposition, so long as the receiving party wasn't prohibited, there was no constraint placed on sharing (transferring) ammunition; only on the sale of ammunition.

Then, Senator Leon left us with his legacy of SB 1235, with a poison pill provision:
Quote:
SEC. 19. (a) Sections 12, 15, and 16 of this act shall only become operative if the Safety for All Act of 2016 is enacted by the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election and becomes effective, in which case Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 shall not become operative.
which scrubbed everything in SB 1235 if the Proposition was passed EXCEPT Section 16, which killed the proposition's language for PC 30370 and Section 15 which replaced the language (Section 12 isn't relevant to this issue).
Quote:
SEC. 16. Section 30370 of the Penal Code, as proposed to be added by the Safety for All Act of 2016 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, is repealed.
of CA PC 30370:
Quote:
30370. (a) Commencing July 1, 2019, the department shall electronically approve the purchase or transfer of ammunition through a vendor, as defined in Section 16151, except as otherwise specified. This approval shall occur at the time of purchase or transfer, prior to the purchaser or transferee taking possession of the ammunition. Pursuant to the authorization specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 30352, the following persons are authorized to purchase ammunition:
SB 1235, in one move, cancelled the Proposition's language allowing the transfer of ammunition without Ammo Vendor intervention.

And that's where we are, folks.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 09-21-2019 at 7:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-21-2019, 7:18 PM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From anotha motha
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,270
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

Cutting off your nose to spite the LGS...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-21-2019, 7:27 PM
Amac1989 Amac1989 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 66
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
Cutting off your nose to spite the LGS...
Care to elaborate?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-21-2019, 7:35 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,136
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
Side question regarding FFL law:

Since FFL are required to process PPT based on inventory (i.e. if they also sell handguns they shall process handgun PPT), are they allowed to require an appointment?

I called Sportsman's Arms in Petaluma a few hours before driving from the peninsula to do a PPT. They never said anything about appointments. I get there and these 2 guys were total jerks. They kept talking over me saying I never called, and if I had they definitely would have told me to make one. Needless to say I will never be returning. I drove 2 1/2 hours.. luckily Petaluma Reloading Supply processed it.
The Attorney General explained the Firearm PPT process to FFLs some years ago.
Quote:
Firearms dealers are required to conduct private party transfers
pursuant to Penal Code section 12071(b)(5). Dealers may not limit
the days or hours in which private party transfers are conducted.

12071(b)(5)The licensee shall agree to and shall act properly and promptly in processing firearms transactions pursuant to Section 12082.
That section is now PC 26825, under ARTICLE 2. Grounds for Forfeiture of License [26800 - 26915]. That does away with the concept of having an appointment, unless all firearms sales at that FFL are appointment only.

Enjoy.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-21-2019, 7:39 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,136
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amac1989 View Post
Just reading the Prop 63 document was hard because so many paragraphs had things crossed out and re-written.

I'm far from a lawyer and really haven't even tried interpreting laws... but wow is California gun law complicated...
Cross-outs indicate existing language being deleted; underlines indicate new language being inserted.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-21-2019, 8:28 PM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 1,483
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Assuming the law, initiative or legislature passed statute requires FFLs to process ammunition transfers the same way they have to process private party transfers, I think it is susceptible to challenge on First Amendment grounds. For ammo, the consent argument is much weaker because it is a requirement added to the licensee’s required duties after the fact.
For myself, I will obey the law, for now. Moving to Nevada has possibly delayed my personal civil disobedience. I have no criticism those with a different opinion.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
"One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me
"Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by flyer898; 09-21-2019 at 8:30 PM.. Reason: Typos
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:01 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,194
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer898 View Post
Assuming the law, initiative or legislature passed statute requires FFLs to process ammunition transfers the same way they have to process private party transfers, I think it is susceptible to challenge on First Amendment grounds. For ammo, the consent argument is much weaker because it is a requirement added to the licensee’s required duties after the fact.
For myself, I will obey the law, for now. Moving to Nevada has possibly delayed my personal civil disobedience. I have no criticism those with a different opinion.
As to the bolded in your quote. Response has to be "NOT REALLY". Because a FFL, must now also apply, and be granted, an "Ammunition Vendors License" in order to comply with prop 63 additions to statute.

Hence, the "extra duties" falls under a requirement of the "Ammunition Vendors" license. Not in addition to the FFL license.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-22-2019, 2:25 AM
S.O.A.R.'s Avatar
S.O.A.R. S.O.A.R. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Southern Crappifornia.
Posts: 282
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post

Only exemptions to the requirement to utilize a CA DOJ licensed ammunition vendor or CA FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer of ownership of ammunition are: [PC 30312(c)]

08. Transfer to a "consultant-evaluator". [PC 30312(c)(8)]
Question:

Can't we all be considered Consultants/Evaluators?
We do consult each other on firearms and ammo, and evaluate each other's firearm and ammo choices, therefore be able to cut the middle man out?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-22-2019, 4:40 AM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,622
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.O.A.R. View Post
Question:

Can't we all be considered Consultants/Evaluators?
We do consult each other on firearms and ammo, and evaluate each other's firearm and ammo choices, therefore be able to cut the middle man out?
No.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-22-2019, 6:09 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,136
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
As to the bolded in your quote. Response has to be "NOT REALLY". Because a FFL, must now also apply, and be granted, an "Ammunition Vendors License" in order to comply with prop 63 additions to statute.

Hence, the "extra duties" falls under a requirement of the "Ammunition Vendors" license. Not in addition to the FFL license.
A clarification: FFLs need not apply for the Ammo Vendor license. It is statutorily granted on the basis of the FFL and their compliance with the ammunition control statutes.

PEN 16151(b)
Quote:
(b) Commencing January 1, 2018, a firearms dealer licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall automatically be deemed a licensed ammunition vendor, provided the dealer complies with the requirements of Articles 2 (commencing with Section 30300) and 3 (commencing with Section 30342) of Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4.
If When FFLs take the actions necessary to comply with the ammunition sales/transfer controls, it would appear that they are explicitly agreeing to compliance with all elements of the statute in addition to their FFL duties under law.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 09-23-2019 at 8:56 AM.. Reason: Clarification.
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 12:41 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.