LGS not doing ammo transfers

[Quiet]

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/ammunition-regulation-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.

[colossians323]

PPT transfer of ammo through a FFL dealer, LMAO !!

same, I don't know why anyone in Cali would obey the law

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

[Librarian]

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/ammunition-regulation-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.

[Comedian]

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...

[Comedian]

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.

[edgerly779]

Big 5 asks that you call first to verify that appropriate personnel are on hand for transaction.

[Comedian]

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.

[edgerly779]

Not at my big 5 in Canoga park. Turners has another person verify docs. Gretas did the same on Thursday.

[Comedian]

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.

[edgerly779]

The big 5 in Glendale has the 2 person verification.

[pacrat]

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.

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

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).

(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.

[Mayor McRifle]

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.

[Hinnerk]

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.

[Comedian]

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.

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.

[Dvrjon]

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/ammunition-regulation-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.

Fun Fact...SB 1235 screwed us.

Proposition 63 (Page 172, Left Column) contained the following language:

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.

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:

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).

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:

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.