CA DROS Delay

[jonc]

Well, I submitted my second live scan Firearms Record Review on July 29th and it still says in progress it's been over 60days. My first Live scan was I a standard Record review I received a letter back on that one nothing negative just when I got my Teaching cert and background check when I was working for the department of Corrections teaching. So not sure where to go from here any Ideas?

I did my AB165 8/3

Pending !

[LMan57]

Well, I submitted my second live scan Firearms Record Review on July 29th and it still says in progress it's been over 60days. My first Live scan was I a standard Record review I received a letter back on that one nothing negative just when I got my Teaching cert and background check when I was working for the department of Corrections teaching. So not sure where to go from here any Ideas?

[pacrat]

Funny you should ask. I had another member once tell me in a post. [paraphrased] "An attorney such as yourself, should not make such incorrect legal statements".
Which was in direct relation to this very "undetermined release" issue. He professed to be a retired lawyer himself. And I have no reason to doubt it. But how good of an attorney, still remains to be seen. Because he was attempting to defend a FFLs policy of refusal to deliver on an undetermined status.


Me, IANAL, so I only have 20 yrs of practice being a semi well read, old retired construction worker.

But I've been in this ANTI 2a crapfest since the Mulford Act in 1967, and GCA 1968. Also an NRA member since 1973, and LIFER since 1978-9. Same for LIFER in CRPA.

And few things piss me off more than the states constant infringements. But businesses that rely on Pro 2A customers for their livelihood. That screw those customers over, and even arbitrarily deny them their right to possess a legally purchased firearm. Sits at the top if the list.

Be Well

[19K]

You just proved me correct in my assessment included in my first sentence of the post you quoted. Alexander Pope was spot on back in 1711 when he said "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". In this instance, it has caused yourself, and a great many others, to buy into "Kamala's BIG LIE".



Had you bothered to seek the path of researching for yourself. [As I suggested] Rather than parroting Kamala. You would have seen the obvious error in your assumptive premise that "MAY", bestows a permissive discretion. When used in "STATUTES".

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/May

first bold ... It does assuredly not say, "MAY transfer". It says "MAY then immediately transfer". [world of difference in contextual definition]. Mandating the FFL to act "immediately" Both in 28220 [A] for the FFLs onus when APPROVED status. And again in 28220 [4], codified 23 yrs later, in the same statute. For an "UNDETERMINED" status. EXACT SAME WORDING IN BOTH.

Which DEFINITIVELY SHOWS that the large underlined sentence in your quote creates an oxymoronical dilemma in your improper discretionary assumptive claim. Because you are claiming that THE EXACT SAME WORDS, IN TWO PLACES, IN THE SAME STATUTE. MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Had you done as I suggested, and searched the words I listed here on CG. You would have already known that "MAY when used in STATUTES", does NOT bestow permission or discretion. As it does in normal conversation. MAY and SHALL are actually LEGAL synonyms when used in statutes. "MAY [then immediately] transfer", is a contextual imperative statement. Already shown in both [A] and [4] of pc 28220.

Don't believe me? Fine, how about you believe literally every LAW BOOK, and LEGAL DICTIONARY. Used in EVERY LAW SCHOOL in the country? Going back as far as any references can be found.




By misrepresenting the law, >28220 [4]. And coercively telling customers "CAN'T SELL YOU A GUN UNLESS YOU SIGN THIS". Any contract signed is null/void, even before, they follow through with refusing to release on "undetermined".

Don't believe me? Fine. Google [Ca UCC] And scroll down to "WHAT DEFINES, BREACH OF CONTRACT".

[/B]

IF they fail to return the DROS fee. Due to their own volition of cancelling the DROS. Rather than legally completing the contract. They have NOT MADE THE PURCHASER WHOLE! < Also covered by UCC.

[pacrat]

It gives discretion to the gun shop.as is their right per CA law. They are so upfront about it that they include it on their website and on a terms of purchase they give you before starting the DROS.

MAY then immediately

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-28220.html

How are they being crooked when they are exercising the discretion given to them by law? How are they being crooked when they refund the entire purchase amount? How are they being crooked when they present you with a document that YOU as the PURCHASER, AGREE TO FOLLOW? Are they not upholding their end of the purchase agreement?

YOU agree to the terms they presented. Now, if they refuse to release on an approved, they are crooked and violating the law.

You just proved me correct in my assessment included in my first sentence of the post you quoted. Alexander Pope was spot on back in 1711 when he said "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". In this instance, it has caused yourself, and a great many others, to buy into "Kamala's BIG LIE".

Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And I believe that you are severely uninformed as to what is, and is not, allowable under Ca UCC Law. As well as Ca pc-28220. And the onus it places on both a purchaser, and a FFL.

Had you bothered to seek the path of researching for yourself. [As I suggested] Rather than parroting Kamala. You would have seen the obvious error in your assumptive premise that "MAY", bestows a permissive discretion. When used in "STATUTES".

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.

John Bouvier was a Philadelphia lawyer, recorder, and criminal court judge. He is most remembered for his legal dictionary, believed to be the first legal dictionary based on American law.

first bold ... It does assuredly not say, "MAY transfer". It says "MAY then immediately transfer". [world of difference in contextual definition]. Mandating the FFL to act "immediately" Both in 28220 [A] for the FFLs onus when APPROVED status. And again in 28220 [4], codified 23 yrs later, in the same statute. For an "UNDETERMINED" status. EXACT SAME WORDING IN BOTH.

Which DEFINITIVELY SHOWS that the large underlined sentence in your quote creates an oxymoronical dilemma in your improper discretionary assumptive claim. Because you are claiming that THE EXACT SAME WORDS, IN TWO PLACES, IN THE SAME STATUTE. MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Had you done as I suggested, and searched the words I listed here on CG. You would have already known that "MAY when used in STATUTES", does NOT bestow permission or discretion. As it does in normal conversation. MAY and SHALL are actually LEGAL synonyms when used in statutes. "MAY [then immediately] transfer", is a contextual imperative statement. Already shown in both [A] and [4] of pc 28220.

Don't believe me? Fine, how about you believe literally every LAW BOOK, and LEGAL DICTIONARY. Used in EVERY LAW SCHOOL in the country? Going back as far as any references can be found.

Be an independent thinker. And ONLY give credence to the LEGAL CITATIONS of the STATUTES, and quotations from LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

NOT WHAT TurDner's, or Kamala, or Becerra, or Bonta say. Because it is in their best interest to LIE to YOU.

By misrepresenting the law, >28220 [4]. And coercively telling customers "CAN'T SELL YOU A GUN UNLESS YOU SIGN THIS". Any contract signed is null/void, even before, they follow through with refusing to release on "undetermined".

Don't believe me? Fine. Google [Ca UCC] And scroll down to "WHAT DEFINES, BREACH OF CONTRACT".

How are they being crooked when they are exercising the discretion given to them by law?
How are they being crooked when they refund the entire purchase amount?

IF they fail to return the DROS fee. Due to their own volition of cancelling the DROS. Rather than legally completing the contract. They have NOT MADE THE PURCHASER WHOLE! < Also covered by UCC.

[19K]

And I believe that you are severely uninformed as to what is, and is not, allowable under Ca UCC Law. As well as Ca pc-28220. And the onus it places on both a purchaser, and a FFL.

Any contract that you sign that contravenes Ca statutes, is void and unenforceable at inception. Any contract under UCC that is based on "misrepresentation" or "coercive" is likewise moot.

That Turdners sales agreement isn't worth spit. Top to Bottom.

If you are OK with being victimized by unscrupulous FFLs, read no further.

If you want to know what the LAW ACTUALLY SAYS. Not what crooked anti 2A Ca politicians say. And the many CG member sheeple that believe them.

USE SEARCH HERE ON CG. .... INVEST SOME TIME RESEARCHING.

MAY ... SHALL ... UNDETERMINED ... 28220 [A] ... 28220 [4]

Be an independent thinker. And ONLY give credence to the LEGAL CITATIONS of the STATUTES, and quotations from LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

NOT WHAT TurDner's, or Kamala, or Becerra, or Bonta say. Because it is in their best interest to LIE to YOU.

ETA ..... Bonta did, sometime after taking office as AG. QUIETLY REMOVE from the Ca DOJ FAQ page. The last vestige of Kamala's Big Lie. And removed the previous last sentence inferring a discretion on FFLs to release after undetermined status.

So NOW, crooked FFLs that refuse to deliver on an undetermined status. Can no longer claim that "DOJ said we could".

MAY

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-28220.html

[pacrat]

And I believe that you are severely uninformed as to what is, and is not, allowable under Ca UCC Law. As well as Ca pc-28220. And the onus it places on both a purchaser, and a FFL.

Any contract that you sign that contravenes Ca statutes, is void and unenforceable at inception. Any contract under UCC that is based on "misrepresentation" or "coercive" is likewise moot.

That Turdners sales agreement isn't worth spit. Top to Bottom.

If you are OK with being victimized by unscrupulous FFLs, read no further.

If you want to know what the LAW ACTUALLY SAYS. Not what crooked anti 2A Ca politicians say. And the many CG member sheeple that believe them.

USE SEARCH HERE ON CG. .... INVEST SOME TIME RESEARCHING.

MAY ... SHALL ... UNDETERMINED ... 28220 [A] ... 28220 [4]

Be an independent thinker. And ONLY give credence to the LEGAL CITATIONS of the STATUTES, and quotations from LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

NOT WHAT TurDner's, or Kamala, or Becerra, or Bonta say. Because it is in their best interest to LIE to YOU.

ETA ..... Bonta did, sometime after taking office as AG. QUIETLY REMOVE from the Ca DOJ FAQ page. The last vestige of Kamala's Big Lie. And removed the previous last sentence inferring a discretion on FFLs to release after undetermined status.

So NOW, crooked FFLs that refuse to deliver on an undetermined status. Can no longer claim that "DOJ said we could".

[LMan57]

Start calling around to the smaller gun shops near you and asking them if they deliver on undetermined.
Report back to that thread with any "yes" responses you receive, and you will be helping to grow the list.

I will do that thanks..

[ar15barrels]

Looking at the list upland is the closest FFL that will deliver with an undetermined 65 miles each way.

Start calling around to the smaller gun shops near you and asking them if they deliver on undetermined.
Report back to that thread with any "yes" responses you receive, and you will be helping to grow the list.

[LMan57]

Looking at the list upland is the closest FFL that will deliver with an undetermined 65 miles each way.

[ar15barrels]

I don’t see where turners had a breach of contract when you sign a contract with then that states they will issue a refund for the firearm, told you dros fees are non refundable, and that they would not release the firearm to you if you are “undetermined”.

Pacrat thinks that "may" = "must".
He is trying to create an inferred contract that does not exist within the state laws.

[19K]

^^^^ FIFY ^^^^


YEAH THAT'S RIGHT ...... It was perfectly legal for them to deliver your lawfully purchased firearm. Since they CHOSE to NOT DO SO, of their own volition. They committed a BREACH OF CONTRACT.

[66nick]

Where is the list that will release on an undetermined DROS?

Hi!
↓See below↓

[ar15barrels]

Where is the list that will release on an undetermined DROS?

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1807945

[LMan57]

Where is the list that will release on an undetermined DROS?