CDNN won't even ship targets to a CA address!

[Calif Hunter]

I got a sales email from CDNN Sports for a sale on targets. I ordered a couple or reactive targets, and logged in. A note popped up that they will only send CA orders to an FFL.....FOR TARGETS?

I ahve ordered from them in the past, but no more.

[Avocado Toast]

I tried ordering some Savior ammo pouches from Mag Shack. They declined the sale, calling it covered by the new CA law. I found another online retailer who gladly shipped them.

You can buy them by the bushel in CA, without any background check or other paperwork.

It was just loose ammo pouches, which, by the way, are excellent.

[Jimi Jah]

I use California roadside election signs. Free after every election. Easy for outside placement, push the metal poles into the ground. Pull them off and reverse them to the blank side indoors.

As a bonus you get to shoot at democrats.

[The Gleam]

If you order such things through Amazon or Ebay, it just goes through and ships without issue - unless the seller is an assmunch and specifically states they won't. I've seen some of that on Ebay in the item descriptions lately.

Meanwhile, if you are now bidding or buying non-firearm items on Gunbroker, and your account addressis in CA, Gunbroker itself has a new 'pop-up' agreement addressing AB1263 and SB704 that you must click on and check a box to proceed.

---

[splithoof]

I tried ordering some Savior ammo pouches from Mag Shack. They declined the sale, calling it covered by the new CA law. I found another online retailer who gladly shipped them.

You can buy them by the bushel in CA, without any background check or other paperwork.

It was just loose ammo pouches, which, by the way, are excellent.

You might want to send *** Shack a copy of your sales receipt from the other retailer, and tell them that you are now spreading the word that they are Bonta’s boot lickers.

[Sam Hainn]

I got a sales email from CDNN Sports for a sale on targets. I ordered a couple or reactive targets, and logged in. A note popped up that they will only send CA orders to an FFL.....FOR TARGETS?

I ahve ordered from them in the past, but no more.

I used to order so much stuff from CDNN back in the 1990s. then they got weird about CA and downsized. Too many restrictions that were not even CA law. haven't bought from them since around Y2K.

[acaligunner]

I got a sales email from CDNN Sports for a sale on targets. I ordered a couple or reactive targets, and logged in. A note popped up that they will only send CA orders to an FFL.....FOR TARGETS?

I ahve ordered from them in the past, but no more.

Yeah, what happed to - we are all 2nd amendment brothers and we support our fellow gunners -

People like that will turn on us law abiding ca gun owners at the drop of a hat. We need to weed them kind out of the fold.

[splithoof]

Yeah, what happed to - we are all 2nd amendment brothers and we support our fellow gunners -

People like that will turn on us law abiding ca gun owners at the drop of a hat. We need to weed them kind out of the fold.

Absolutely 100% agree.

[GOEX FFF]

I agree that we must all stick together. But I can tell you that now living in a free state, 2A folks in free America absolutely despise Kalifornia. It's seen as not even part of America anymore, but a third world tyrannical commie chit-hole.

Case in point. I still have the same cell number I had in Kalifornia. I have so many contacts from over the years, it would be a royal pain in the azz to change it and update everyone to a new TX number, so I've just kept it.

I've had a handful of times calling some gun stores, when they see it's a Kalifornia number, they have either flat out ignored me or when talking to them, the responses have been short, like I'm wasting their time...until I tell them I live in TX, then their whole demeanor changes and they're as friendly as could be.

One small shop I called was in Louisiana. After again getting the cold shoulder, I said I'm a TX resident and his reply was "oh...well sh*t, I was wondering who the hell would be calling me from "THAT state!..How may I help you?!" And we then had a great conversation for the next 20 minutes.

When a company (especially the smaller shops) know they could be sued by Kalifornia DOJ for making a mistake while having to tip-toe through the minefield of all the convoluted laws and hoops to jump through to comply with Kalifornia laws, rather than dealing with the bull chit, they have all but written the place off and want nothing to do with it.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's fact and in many ways, now living in a free state, I can see where they're coming from.

[acaligunner]

^
I lived in AZ for 5 years and yes, ca is all messed up, but look at all the firearms mfg’s that jump on the ban wagon and give us the finger.

Also, are they really going to sue an out of state mfg , or did those out of state gun companies just went with the flow and say - screw ca ?

A lot of those companies hate us for decades, but then when we get a freedom week they come after ca dollars, what’s the deal with that ?

I just don’t get the abandonment, and bad vibe ..

[Silence Dogood]

^
I lived in AZ for 5 years and yes, ca is all messed up, but look at all the firearms mfg’s that jump on the ban wagon and give us the finger.

Also, are they really going to sue an out of state mfg , or did those out of state gun companies just went with the flow and say - screw ca ?

A lot of those companies hate us for decades, but then when we get a freedom week they come after ca dollars, what’s the deal with that ?

I just don’t get the abandonment, and bad vibe ..

I believe there are instances of CA going after out of state entities over stuff like this but I can't cite an example so maybe that is fudlore. CA definitely sued a number of out of state individuals/ organization after passing 1263 over the files maintained on the Gatalog. One of the defendants, Matthew Larosiere, is a Floridian in addition to being an attorney (one of the attorneys that represented Matt Hoover during parts of his case) and host of the Fudbusters and Fudblasters YT channels. I started a thread back in February when they filed the suit: CA v. GATALOG FOUNDATION INC, et al.. Writing this reminds me I need to look into how that case and the counter suit are progressing and update the thread as appropriate.

I agree that we must all stick together. But I can tell you that now living in a free state, 2A folks in free America absolutely despise Kalifornia. It's seen as not even part of America anymore, but a third world tyrannical commie chit-hole.

Case in point. I still have the same cell number I had in Kalifornia. I have so many contacts from over the years, it would be a royal pain in the azz to change it and update everyone to a new TX number, so I've just kept it.

I've had a handful of times calling some gun stores, when they see it's a Kalifornia number, they have either flat out ignored me or when talking to them, the responses have been short, like I'm wasting their time...until I tell them I live in TX, then their whole demeanor changes and they're as friendly as could be.

One small shop I called was in Louisiana. After again getting the cold shoulder, I said I'm a TX resident and his reply was "oh...well sh*t, I was wondering who the hell would be calling me from "THAT state!..How may I help you?!" And we then had a great conversation for the next 20 minutes.

When a company (especially the smaller shops) know they could be sued by Kalifornia DOJ for making a mistake while having to tip-toe through the minefield of all the convoluted laws and hoops to jump through to comply with Kalifornia laws, rather than dealing with the bull chit, they have all but written the place off and want nothing to do with it.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's fact and in many ways, now living in a free state, I can see where they're coming from.

This^ is very well stated. I completely get where they are coming from because I agree! California has turned into a "a third world tyrannical commie chit-hole". As has been discussed in other threads, some of us "behind enemy lines" feel like we have too much here to leave: family, careers, generations of our forefathers buried in the ground, what have you. Staying is a choice that we make and truth be told, I recognize that if things get much worse, I mean much much worse, like kinetic disagreement worse, the best thing for all concerned will be for those of us still here to regroup in free America before it happens. I've studied enough history and played enough Risk to know that being behind "enemy lines" is not a good place to be--for the movement or the forces who remain cutoff from the rest of the group.

I completely understand the sentiment from those you have spoken to, and, again, compliment your description, because I have dealt with the same thing myself. Though I still live here in CA, I have friends in a number of red (and former red) states: Texas, Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma, and Georgia just to name a handful, whom I visit for weeks at a time. I too have called FFLs in those states from my CA cell and visited them having conversations in person where my CA residency came up and, again, you nailed the typical response on the head. Every time I encountered resistance initially, a short explanation of my values (which coincide with theirs) and my frustration with and personal rationale for living "behind enemy lines surrounded by commie sheeple" without notable exception garnered respect and a completely different attitude than I had first received.

The thing that gets me--and I will say up front that it seems increasingly less common--is the sentiment I have seen from some, probably exclusively online, that it is simply my problem as a Californian and that they are immune to the disarmament threat by nature of their living in a free-state. I think the reason this sentiment seems less prevalent today than it used to be is the advancement of anti-2A into what were once solidly red states (see: NV, CO, VA, etc.). We, as a nation, have a problem with disarmamentarians that coincides with both socialists and globalists. It is a problem that affects us all and one that until that last decade or so, we were losing on nearly all fronts. Court wins since Heller have increasingly been encouraging but the proliferation of voters who support disarmament policies (read: Democrats), as evidenced in the aforementioned now purple or blue states, is a serious problem that continues to advance against us. We here on CGN have talked about the Overton window shifting in favor of the 2A (I know I have) but in truth, I think at best that point is arguable. And even if it is true, we have a looong way to go to get the majority of American voters to revere the Bill of Rights as those of us in the 2A advocacy community seem to, regardless of political party affiliation. I'm hope someone well read like TrappedinCalifornia will correct me if I am wrong on this next point or add weight to the argument if it is valid but it feels like not too long ago (certainly in my lifetime, maybe before the 80s) 2A was not really a partisan issue. I recognize that nuance can be difficult but I would like to see the 2A advocacy, and American gun owners at large, think of this fight as one which we all bear together, not merely a problem for citizens of 2A-unfriendly states and towns.

As for shops being sued by the state, as I said above in response to acaligunner, I think it is a real threat so their conservative actions in regard to CA residents makes sense to me, especially in the case of small shops. In the case of big companies like Midway and PSA, I would really like to see them be more aggressive in their pushback. I'm not sure what exactly that would look like but it would be great if some kind of underground railroad type of subversion against the unconstitutional laws in this state and other 2A-hostile states existed. I've read members here talk about shops that still ship to CA but I pray they don't disclose them on the internet, for obvious reasons. I guess at a minimum, I'd like to see the big shops like Midway and PSA push back against CA by selling things like targets and stickers (and maybe even mags. and tools since the laws were initially sold as being about barrels), until either a) they had to fight it out in court since the law is an unconstitutional infringement or b) the state let it slide because they really only intend to prosecute for things like barrels and frames (still unconstitutional but outside the purview of this thread) which would pave the way for smaller shops to do the same.

I may have wandered off the point of your post a little there, sorry. To circle back around to it, I think it would be prudent for us to focus our despise (old English noun form of the verb we use in modern English) on the state and the politicians who advance anti-2A laws, distinguishing the state and those politicans from residents and further then, distinguishing those residents that make up the majority who vote for these politicians from those of us in the minority--like many here on CGN--who speak out and campaign and vote against those politicians and their policies.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

... I'm hope someone well read like TrappedinCalifornia will correct me if I am wrong on this next point or add weight to the argument if it is valid but it feels like not too long ago (certainly in my lifetime, maybe before the 80s) 2A was not really a partisan issue...

It depends on what you mean by 'partisan issue.' Briefly, there has been a two faction split from virtually the beginning; i.e., a collective vs. individual right. As such, it was more dependent on societal circumstances than political party in terms of legislation and how the 2nd Amendment was viewed. Let's just say that until the 1960s and 1970s, there was far greater liberty on what activities were protected by the 2nd Amendment than we see today.

With the coming of the Gun Control Act in 1968, things began to turn noticeably and true schisms began to form along Party lines. However, it didn't begin in 1968. Where it started to gain steam was with Kennedy's assassination. Then came urban rioting. Then came the King and Robert Kennedy assassinations. Of course, there was the Mulford Act in 1967 which was actually an attempt to preserve the right to bear arms, but introduced a permit as a precursory requirement. Remember, that act was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, along with the NRA and there were reasons they did. As with many other things, once the camel's nose was allowed under the tent, it was incrementally taken advantage of.

If you were to read something like Wikipedia, you will find that the 'collective right' ideology held precedent until Heller. That's simply untrue. Heller was simply the first time SCOTUS ruled definitively in terms of which ideology was 'correct.' Revisionist 'history' aside, in 1982, over a quarter century before Heller, a Senate Subcommittee released a report entitled The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It took a rather extensive look at the history of the 2nd Amendment and the last portion of the report was definitive...

...The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately posses and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to the state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected against infringement by both.

Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights--as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia".[65] This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 311(a).(p.12)

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

What I've always found interesting is that Scalia never seemed to reference that report in Heller. Yet, the committee took pains to denote the historical context upon which the 'test' in Bruen now rests and that case did not mention the report either. Why might that be? Likely, it was due to the fact that it was a precursor to the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 and would have come across as reliance on a 'partisan' publication.

Thus, in a sense, the 2nd Amendment as a 'partisan issue' is more modern and evolved from the societal unrest in the 1960s. It was solidified in the 1970s and 1980s with things like the NRA's 'Revolt in Cincinnati' in 1977 and Republican Party reaction to proposed gun registration when they took control of Congress in 1981. Suffice to say that machinations, on both sides of the political aisle, have brought us to where we are now. That doesn't mean that restrictions on the right didn't transpire prior to the 1960s as we clearly know they did. The difference was that bipartisanship helped pass those restrictions. Put another way, while there was generally agreement that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right, there was also agreement that Government could pass restrictions on the right.

That was the crucial impact of Heller; i.e., SCOTUS declaring that Government restrictions at the time of the Founding were very limited. This was followed up on with other cases, which brought us to Bruen which declared what the Senate had in 1982; i.e., that historical records showed a sparsity of legal restrictions. It is the basis SCOTUS is now using to SLOWLY, but INEVITABLY (we hope), draw a line in the sand. It also highlights the 'Living Constitution' interpretive approach, which began, roughly during the Wilson Administration in the early 20th Century, but gained prominence with Roosevelt in the 1930s.

In a very real sense, the partisan divide wasn't just over the 2nd Amendment so much as it was a 'movement' in terms of a new way of looking at the relationship between We the People and Government. Over the last 60 years, while elements still spread across the political spectrum, the abandonment of the 'traditional view' became more prounounced on the Left, which is the 'Democrat side.' Naturally, this engendered a reaction on the Republican side in the opposite direction.

So, one needs to be careful in claiming the Left was always against our rights and the Right was always the champion of them. Not exactly. As you said, there are nuances. The one thing which is historically clear, however, is that the right to keep and bear arms was always intended as an individual right. The disagreements have always centered more around what restrictions Government could place on those rights and while it is argued that such restrictions are inherently contradictory to 'shall not be infringed,' as we've seen and as even Scalia noted, there were restrictions, even at the time of the Founding. The crucial difference which today's anti-civil rights actors want you to forget is that, at the time of the Founding, such restrictions were very limited. That is what the current makeup or, at least, Thomas and Alito, want to make abundantly clear.

[Like2fly]

I use California roadside election signs. Free after every election. Easy for outside placement, push the metal poles into the ground. Pull them off and reverse them to the blank side indoors.

As a bonus you get to shoot at democrats.

Those signs are low to the ground (like dirty lying Dems🙃) and more likely to skip your shots up…. Not good for most gun ranges 🤔