No more recievers/actions in CA?

[Joeyf1986]

Ordered a Defiance action to build a hunting rifle around, waited a few and it finally comes to my FFL.

I go to DROS it today, FFL says he can't do anything until August 24 because of the firearm precursor law coming?

The FFL and myself are extremely confused, said the website wouldn't allow him to do the transfer because it's not a full rifle.

Anyone have a similar experience?

[pacrat]

I go to DROS it today, FFL says he can't do anything until August 24 because of the firearm precursor law coming?

Your FFL is an IGNORANT TURD. A complete receiver manufactured by a fully licensed maker that is serialized. Is NOT A PRECURSOR part.

IT IS A FIREARM

Even if it was a "precursor part". Just Who TF does your ignorant turd FFL think he is? Trying to enforce NOT YET LAWS, as if they had legal binding?

[baih777]

You need another FFL.
Call another store and see if they will accept your action from your FFL.
You will have to pay for shipping.
It sounds like your FFL has never DROS ed an action before.

[SharedShots]

OP, I'm curious. So when the FFL said what you claim, what did you do, just walk away or ask some additional questions. I mean, your post is rather sparse. Surely there was more to the conversation than that.

Who was the FFL?



.

[Joeyf1986]

FFL called Ca DOJ and they told him the same. I have sent multiple firearms/receivers through this ffl and have never had an issue.
Edit: the ffl DID attempt to dros the action, he said the doj would not accept it. After calling doj, he was told they were not processing any receivers due to changing laws and memo's coming out.

[pacrat]

FFL called Ca DOJ and they told him the same. I have sent multiple firearms/receivers through this ffl and have never had an issue.
Edit: the ffl DID attempt to dros the action, he said the doj would not accept it. After calling doj, he was told they were not processing any receivers due to changing laws and memo's coming out.

If what you claim the FFL said is true. Which I seriously doubt.

The Ca DOJ-BOF just became criminals.

They are a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. NO LEA can PREEMPTIVELY ENFORCE NON-EXISTANT LAWS.

Contact Michel & Assoc. They and the CRPA are looking for plaintiffs.

https://michellawyers.com/practice-areas/firearms-law-group/

[joker440]

DOJ Bulletin

Here's what they sent to FFL's.

[SharedShots]

FFL called Ca DOJ and they told him the same. I have sent multiple firearms/receivers through this ffl and have never had an issue.
Edit: the ffl DID attempt to dros the action, he said the doj would not accept it. After calling doj, he was told they were not processing any receivers due to changing laws and memo's coming out.

This is where the hearsay thing shows up.

Perhaps this this what happened (and do correct if I'm in error):

You go into the DROS the receiver.
The FFL initially tells you he can't do it because of a law being implemented in August.
You question him and he says he called the DOJ and the DOJ told him not to process because of the law (that isn't yet in effect and doesn't prohibit DROSing a licensed manufacturer from selling serialized receivers anyway).

The phone call wasn't made in your presence, or you weren't in a position to hear the other side of the conversation. The FFL likely made the call in private and not from the counter?

How close am I?

It's very unlikely the DOJ told your FFL not to process the transfer or the FFL didn't adequately describe the item as a serialized receiver from a licensed manufacturer of such things. It could very likely be that the FFL tried to DROS the receiver as an 80%, Un-serialized in error and upon calling the FFL relayed that same scenario.

It comes down to you having heard everything first hand or just relaying what someone said that someone said.

Since you posted it, naturally questions get asked.

So, pretty close or way off? Not trying to bust your grapes but if it did happen just as you said, you heard it all first hand and the DOJ did tell the FFL to process a serialized legal to buy receiver, that is a pretty big deal.



.

[joker440]

This is where the hearsay thing shows up.

Perhaps this this what happened (and do correct if I'm in error):

You go into the DROS the receiver.
The FFL initially tells you he can't do it because of a law being implemented in August.
You question him and he says he called the DOJ and the DOJ told him not to process because of the law (that isn't yet in effect and doesn't prohibit DROSing a licensed manufacturer from selling serialized receivers anyway).

The phone call wasn't made in your presence, or you weren't in a position to hear the other side of the conversation. The FFL likely made the call in private and not from the counter?

How close am I?

It's very unlikely the DOJ told your FFL not to process the transfer or the FFL didn't adequately describe the item as a serialized receiver from a licensed manufacturer of such things. It could very likely be that the FFL tried to DROS the receiver as an 80%, Un-serialized in error and upon calling the FFL relayed that same scenario.

It comes down to you having heard everything first hand or just relaying what someone said that someone said.

Since you posted it, naturally questions get asked.

So, pretty close or way off? Not trying to bust your grapes but if it did happen just as you said, you heard it all first hand and the DOJ did tell the FFL to process a serialized legal to buy receiver, that is a pretty big deal.



.

Read the attachment I attached above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pacrat]

Here's what they sent to FFL's.

AB 1621 revises the definition of a “firearm precursor part” to mean: “any forging, casting, printing,
extrusion, machined body or similar article [1] that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may
readily be completed, assembled or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional
firearm, or [2] that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of
a functional firearm once completed, assembled or converted.”

Read the attachment I attached above.

I DID, I also read ,,,,, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/gu...in%20a%20crime. Which was referenced in the Ca DOJ Info Bulletin you posted.

Redefining "precursor part" does not affect what is ALREADY A LEGALLY SERIALIZED FIREARM. LAWFULLY MANUFACTURED AND SOLD AS A FIREARM.

An ALREADY COMPLETE and SERIALIZED RECEIVER.

IS ALREADY A FIREARM.

NO DIFFERENT THAN A COMPLETE RIFLE OR PISTOL.

[AKSOG]

Soooo they are saying they banned buying firearms?

[pacrat]

Soooo they are saying they banned buying firearms?

That is the crux of what the Ca-DOJ weenies, "supposedly" told the FFL in question.

[The Gleam]

FFL called Ca DOJ and they told him the same. I have sent multiple firearms/receivers through this ffl and have never had an issue.
Edit: the ffl DID attempt to dros the action, he said the doj would not accept it. After calling doj, he was told they were not processing any receivers due to changing laws and memo's coming out.

I just looked at the Defiance website; nice stuff.

Undoubtedly, the action you purchased had a serial number?

If so, it's a Federally recognized firearm which California also recognizes as a firearm; it says so right in the DOJ bulletin. It's NOT a 'precursor' part by the state's own definition, even under this new repugnant legislation.

Something is amiss, either with your FFL and/or the CA DOJ. If the latter, the CRPA needs to look into this immediately, slap Bonta's Gestapo with some reality, and add the issue to the fire with the CCW PPI publishing stunt, and the hostile 'delayed/undetermined' DROS shell-game.

---

[Joeyf1986]

Well turns out to be a clerical error along with DOJ nonsense.
FFL attempted to dros it under the selling company name as the production company. FFL didn't catch his mistake and called DOJ to question it. They don't catch the mistake and gave a kneejerk precursore part answer.

After speaking with the FFL, I caught him using the merchants name instead of Defiance, and questioned it. DROS went through no problem after the correction was made

[TAS]

Well turns out to be a clerical error along with DOJ nonsense.
FFL attempted to dros it under the selling company name as the production company. FFL didn't catch his mistake and called DOJ to question it. They don't catch the mistake and gave a kneejerk precursore part answer.

After speaking with the FFL, I caught him using the merchants name instead of Defiance, and questioned it. DROS went through no problem after the correction was made

Great to hear!