Thirty-day DROS

[BAJ475]

My sister-in-law sent me a text message that she had purchased a Henry rifle for my brother-in-law for Christmas. The rifle was shipped to a local FFL. Once the rifle arrived, my brother-in-law completed the 4473 and DROS paperwork. They both have CA CCW licenses, and he had never had a problem with a firearm purchase in the past. The FFL notified them today that they received a delayed notification from CA DOJ and could not release the rifle until the 30 day period expired. I spoke with the FFL and inquired about the purported reason for the delay. I was told that CA DOJ never provides an explanation, reason or justification for the delay and that they have a customer, who is an ex LEO, that regularly gets delayed. The FFL added that once you get the first delay, you will get delays on every DROS thereafter.

This is BS. What I am looking for is the experience of others that have had their DROS delayed. I will have my brother-in-law file a California Public Records request for all documents and records relating to the number of times the CA DOJ delays a DROS without an ultimate denial based on the person being prohibited; the reason or reasons for the delays, including how often a person is subsequently delayed after having received his or her first delay; what steps, if any, the CA DOJ has taken to reduce or eliminate such delays; the number of times CA DOJ notifies the FFL that the DROS is delayed after having received a clear NICS check and, if none, why was the NICS check not done prior to notifying the FFL of the delay; and if the delay is based on a NICS check why that information is not provided to the FFL and purchaser so that the purchaser can deal with the FBI to prevent further problems when attempting to purchase a firearm?

For any FFLs reading this post/thread, does the DROS submittal include the fact that the purchaser holds a valid CA CCW or has credentials of past employment as a LEO, making it a nearly trivial task to verify that the purchaser is not a prohibited person? I know that when I lived in CA, the FFL wanted a copy of my CA CCW to show that I was exempt from the safe handling demonstration.

Has anyone or is anyone planning on suing the State of California to challenge the arbitrary waiting period to pick up a firearm?

Any thoughts and comments?

[Undertaker]

I bought a gun and picked it up 10 days later. 20 days later, 30 from the first purchase I bought another. Was on hold and then undetermined for a total of 45 days. At the same time there was a active police officer that was on hold and undetermined for 45 days. I would be interested in following your progress. I would be interested in being a part of your lawsuit.

[DolphinFan]

The best way to deal with a rogue DOJ, is to find a sympathetic legislator, to write/fit-amend, a bill to exempt both LE & CCW holders from the 1 in 30 day requirement, and the 10 day wait.
If I already have more than one handgun/rifle, why would I need a ?cooling off? period? It was the original reason the law.
I was delayed on my last 2 DROS?s last year. I know why, but have since been issued my CCW and haven?t tried to by one yet

[DCoakley]

FYI some dealers will not release on undetermined. They also may charge you a restocking fee. It is important to ask or know their policies prior to purchase. Good luck with the DOJ.

[Preston-CLB]

OP, there are several threads in the General Gun Discussions forum re DROS Delays.

Here's one such: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ght=DROS+Delay

The advice to find FFL's that release on "Undetermined" should be heeded.
-P

[AlmostHeaven]

Considering how many California Democrats want to extend the mandatory waiting period to 30 days, I do not expect the DOJ to lift a finger to help anyone resolve their endless delay conundrums.

[BAJ475]

Thanks to everyone who replied. The particular FFL will release if still undetermined after 30 days. I will check out the threads suggested by Preston-CLB.

[michaelh1951]

While I object to any waiting period, I can at least understand the rationale for some "cooling off" period for someone's FIRST gun...
But if you've already got one gun, there is no logic in forcing you to wait again, and again, and again.

It's just Democrat bullying

[BAJ475]

While I object to any waiting period, I can at least understand the rationale for some "cooling off" period for someone's FIRST gun...
But if you've already got one gun, there is no logic in forcing you to wait again, and again, and again.

It's just Democrat bullying

By "rationale" I assume you mean that a logical argument could be made to support the restriction or limitation. If so, I would not disagree. But that does not mean that I would agree with any such conclusion. Using the above definition of rationale, a rationale argument could be made to prohibit all Democrats from ever voting because of the mess they have made of California and the nation. In fact, I would argue that a rationale argument could be made to try all elected Democrats for treason, followed by hanging or a firing squad with Joe Biden at the top of the list based on the number of deaths of our citizens resulting from his decision to not enforce our immigration laws. Of course, as we recognize, a rationale argument is grossly insufficient to deny a person a constitutional right, even f***ing Democrats and RINOs.

[AlmostHeaven]

No waiting period mandate adheres to the Second Amendment.

If a non-prohibited person wishes to commit atrocities, the target will not vanish into the ether, no matter how many days worth of delays the state imposes. If an individual has chosen to commit suicide, denying access to firearms leaves a million other options available. Places such as South Korea with far stricter gun laws than even European countries still post higher suicide rates than the United States.

[wceviper]

Same thing here. Got notified about a week into the 10 days that I am on delay. Never had this issue before. I'll try to come back here and post what the outcome is.

[AlmostHeaven]

Same thing here. Got notified about a week into the 10 days that I am on delay. Never had this issue before. I'll try to come back here and post what the outcome is.

I wish you the best of luck. Post any updates here.

[Tankhatch]

Opinion 1: First thing politicians do is, when money is tight, is NOT doing public services they demanded to have power over.
Opinion 2: Political illogic. I also think Newscum is asking DOJ to slowdown things that can lead to more CCWs.
It would be obvious if he just slowed down just pistols only, so he has slowed down all.

[BAJ475]

Opinion 1: First thing politicians do is, when money is tight, is doing public services they demanded to have power over.
Opinion 2: Political illogic. I also think Newscum is asking DOJ to slowdown things that can lead to more CCWs.
It would be obvious if he just slowed down just pistols only, so he has slowed down all.

My sister-in-law sent me a copy of the letter my brother-in-law received from CA DOJ. Unless he tells me no, my plan is to write to CA DOJ and demand a further explanation and justification for their delay based on purportedly not being able to determine if he was a prohibited person.

[AlmostHeaven]

Opinion 1: First thing politicians do is, when money is tight, is doing public services they demanded to have power over.
Opinion 2: Political illogic. I also think Newscum is asking DOJ to slowdown things that can lead to more CCWs.
It would be obvious if he just slowed down just pistols only, so he has slowed down all.

Opinion 3: Democrats hate guns, gun culture, and gun owners, so any policy that chills the exercise of Second Amendment rights in any way qualifies as a net good.