It would be $19 each handgun, but for purposes of community property, I think we can say all the handguns belong to the active duty new-resident, and you can skip the Personal Handgun Importer jazz.
MAWP works only for the active-duty partner, and it's substantially broken; originally it was intended to ease the burden on folks transferred here at the convenience of Uncle Sugar. Sometime in the last two years some clever person in CADOJ thought the rules should be changed to 'approval for duty use', which commanders are quite surprised to be asked, and usually reflexively say 'no' (that is 'we issue weapons we want them to have; if I don't HAVE TO say 'yes', then I'm not going to open that can of worms. No.').
The 'flash suppressor' thing: first, please don't try to make sense of the technical content of California gun laws - the laws are not about guns, but about getting re-elected by seeming to 'do something' about violence without actually inconveniencing any group of campaign donors or spending any money.
Second, there's no definition of a 'flash suppressor'; basically DOJ evaluates manufacturers' nomenclature: if it's called a suppressor, it is a suppressor. If it's called a 'muzzle brake', they try to look at them (not believing the manufacturers this time) and see if any visible flash is redirected. There's no standard for that.
MAWP works only for the active-duty partner, and it's substantially broken; originally it was intended to ease the burden on folks transferred here at the convenience of Uncle Sugar. Sometime in the last two years some clever person in CADOJ thought the rules should be changed to 'approval for duty use', which commanders are quite surprised to be asked, and usually reflexively say 'no' (that is 'we issue weapons we want them to have; if I don't HAVE TO say 'yes', then I'm not going to open that can of worms. No.').
The 'flash suppressor' thing: first, please don't try to make sense of the technical content of California gun laws - the laws are not about guns, but about getting re-elected by seeming to 'do something' about violence without actually inconveniencing any group of campaign donors or spending any money.
Second, there's no definition of a 'flash suppressor'; basically DOJ evaluates manufacturers' nomenclature: if it's called a suppressor, it is a suppressor. If it's called a 'muzzle brake', they try to look at them (not believing the manufacturers this time) and see if any visible flash is redirected. There's no standard for that.

Comment