CA DROS Delay

[SkyHawk]

Thanks, I will do that do I still have to wait for my Live Scan to clear?

That probably does not apply in California, he was answering somebody in Arizona. In California, the CADOJ is the POC for the NICS checks. I don't recall whether the DROS form has a place for a UPIN.

Correct, not applicable in CA unless dealing with the CMP because they will do NICs checks on CA buyers and a UPIN can be the difference between success and failure for some people.

And no the DROS form does not have a place for a UPIN although you might be able to get CA DOJ to attach one to your permanent file.

[SkyHawk]

Just got a text from my buddy, he was delayed almost 30 days at Sportsmans and just got word he was approved. He has bought at least five guns in the past 12-18 months so I am not sure wth happened.

[The Gleam]

From my legal experience/background (not a lawyer, different type of background)

• May gives someone the option to do it. It means they can, if they want to, at their own discretion.
• Shall means they MUST perform that action.

In this case (again from my legal understanding) the FFL CAN release it, they have permission to do so. They are not required by law to do so. They may have their own insurance/company policies that prevent it. This is why/how some of the FFLs out there do not release on undetermined. They are within their right to do so, but I (and likely many others) are making the choice to not shop at those places.

Just want to clear up one little thing.... which has been addressed before:

THERE ARE NO INSURANCE POLICIES FOR FIREARM DEALERS - 50-STATE WIDE - IN EXISTENCE - THAT PREVENT IT!!

If a dealer is using that as an excuse to hide behind, and blame some unidentifiable third party because it sounds all "officially" to someone that would not have any clue otherwise - they are full of crap and lying.

That is all.

---

[pacrat]

I am not a lawyer, so I have a bit of curiosity regarding the word may in this statement from the penal code:



"May" implies that the FFL has the choice whether or not to release on 'undetermined', as opposed to "shall" (if that word was used instead of "may") which means the FFL would be breaking the law if they chose not to release on 'undetermined'.

For you legal eagles, am I correct in my assumption here?
-P

^^^ NO ^^^

It needs to be changed to shall and they would have to release it on undetermined correct?

^^^ "MAY and SHALL" ^^^ Are synonymous when used in legal statutes.

From my legal experience/background (not a lawyer, different type of background)

• May gives someone the option to do it. It means they can, if they want to, at their own discretion.
• Shall means they MUST perform that action.

In this case (again from my legal understanding) the FFL CAN release it, they have permission to do so. They are not required by law to do so. They may have their own insurance/company policies that prevent it. This is why/how some of the FFLs out there do not release on undetermined. They are NOT within their right to do so, but I (and likely many others) are making the choice to not shop at those places.

^^^ NOPE ^^^ 66nick, you previously quoted 28220[f][4], even though you numbered it as a 9. Which describes "UNDETERMINED RELEASE" AFTER 30 DAYS

Now look at 28220[f][A]. Which describes "APPROVED RELEASE" after 10 DAYS. IN THE SAME STATUTE.

THEY ARE WORDED EXACTLY THE SAME. The only difference is the NUMBER OF DAYS. In a typical dictionary. "MAY' is often, defined as permissive. BUT in LEGAL DICTIONARIES. Going back to 1856. Here is the definition. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/May

may
v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from "shall" which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation. (See: shall)MAY. To be permitted; to be at liberty; to have the power.
2. Whenever a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word may is the same as shall. For example, the 23 H. VI. says, the sheriff may take bail, that is construed he shall, for he is compellable to do so. Carth. 293 Salk. 609; Skin. 370.
3. The words shall and may in general acts of the legislature or in private constitutions, are to be construed imperatively; 3. Atk. 166; but the construction of those words in a deed depends on circumstances. 3 Atk. 282. See 1 Vern. 152, case. 142 9 Porter, R. 390.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

When the legislature ADDED [4] to the statute. 23 yrs after [A]. They knew exactly what they meant to say. Because they were simply adding to [A].

FFLs .................. NEVER HAD ANY DISCRETION WHETHER TO RELEASE OR NOT.

[pacrat]

Just want to clear up one little thing.... which has been addressed before:

THERE ARE NO INSURANCE POLICIES FOR FIREARM DEALERS - 50-STATE WIDE - IN EXISTENCE - THAT PREVENT IT!!

If a dealer is using that as an excuse to hide behind, and blame some unidentifiable third party because it sounds all "officially" to someone that would not have any clue otherwise - they are full of crap and lying.

That is all.

---

^^^ ALL OF THAT ^^^

[ar15barrels]

^^^ "MAY and SHALL" ^^^ Are synonymous when used in legal statutes.

So synonymous that we have this animated CCW issuance map with blue to show shall issue and and yellow to show may issue:

[Dc2 r guy]

I'm going through the same issue right now.
Did 2 separate private party transfers

8/5/22 - Dros
8/11/22 got the call from turners.
waiting on my letter from the DOJ


8/7/22 - Dros
8/15/22 - Got the call from ammo bros.
waiting on my letter from the DOJ

Got the call today from ammo bro.
Green light for pick up 9/2

Called turners
Got the green light as well
9/2

[pacrat]

So synonymous that we have this animated CCW issuance map with blue to show shall issue and and yellow to show may issue:

CONTEXTUAL SEMANTIC DIFFERENCE.

Improperly calling states that have "RESTRICTED ISSUE". Such as Ca, "MAY" issue is not a viable example due to the common mis-usage.

It is simply a semantic shortcut, rather than a contextual reality.

In SHALL issue states, a permit MUST be issued if applicant isn't PROHIBITED.

In [so called] "MAY" issue states. The IA only has discretion, if the applicant meets mandatory state requirements, in order to "qualify" for the PRIVILEGE. Even if, NOT PROHIBITED.

[ar15barrels]

CONTEXTUAL SEMANTIC DIFFERENCE.

Improperly calling states that have "RESTRICTED ISSUE". Such as Ca, "MAY" issue is not a viable example due to the common mis-usage.

It is simply a semantic shortcut, rather than a contextual reality.

In SHALL issue states, a permit MUST be issued if applicant isn't PROHIBITED.

In [so called] "MAY" issue states. The IA only has discretion, if the applicant meets mandatory state requirements, in order to "qualify" for the PRIVILEGE. Even if, NOT PROHIBITED.

So what you are saying is what we already know.
"Shall issue" and "May issue" are absolutely not synonymous.

[pacrat]

So what you are saying is what we already know.
"Shall issue" and "May issue" are absolutely not synonymous.

In relation to the OT, CCW map you posted. They are not synonymous. In relation to DROSing forearms in Ca. Getting delayed, and or, undetermined. They are.

What I'm saying is that CONTEXTUAL USAGE GOVERNS, which definition is applicable. Just like all those BIG HEAVY LEGAL DICTIONARIES said.

2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative.
The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation. (See: shall)

In Ca pc 28220 (4) "may" definitely applies as mandatory. As it was contextually intended, when initially written 23 years prior in pc 28220 (A).

And improperly miss-using "may issue" on a map, rather than the proper "restricted issue" or even "regulated issue" only serves to muddy the semantic water.

[tdo21t]

Welp, just got my pistol delayed today (DROS on 8/31/22). I literally just got approved for my shotgun on 8/26/22 after one 30 day delay and an unannounced cancel which took about 50days to get my Benelli M4 (original DROS = 7/6/22 or something).

Funny thing is that I am getting delayed every other purchase.... 2 of 4 have been delayed and the other 2 were no problems...

Got another DROS for a shotgun so I am hoping that goes through without a hitch. Super annoyed with CADOJ.

[golfish]

Welp, just got my pistol delayed today (DROS on 8/31/22). I literally just got approved for my shotgun on 8/26/22 after one 30 day delay and an unannounced cancel which took about 50days to get my Benelli M4 (original DROS = 7/6/22 or something).

Funny thing is that I am getting delayed every other purchase.... 2 of 4 have been delayed and the other 2 were no problems...

Got another DROS for a shotgun so I am hoping that goes through without a hitch. Super annoyed with CADOJ.

All that delay time and they have never given you a reason?

[tdo21t]

All that delay time and they have never given you a reason?

Never. Not once.

[tdo21t]

Welp, just got my pistol delayed today (DROS on 8/31/22). I literally just got approved for my shotgun on 8/26/22 after one 30 day delay and an unannounced cancel which took about 50days to get my Benelli M4 (original DROS = 7/6/22 or something).

Funny thing is that I am getting delayed every other purchase.... 2 of 4 have been delayed and the other 2 were no problems...

Got another DROS for a shotgun so I am hoping that goes through without a hitch. Super annoyed with CADOJ.

Just an update, just got a call that my DROS is delayed for the shotgun.... two in a row.

[Creative300]

If they had a legit reason to delay you they would tell you but they don't.

So much for transparency. In a dictatorship the govt doesn't have to give you any reason or explanation for its actions.