What's required of out-of-state dealers to sell to us?

[GOEX FFF]

I should also add, that 03 FFL holders are exempt from the CFLC. An out-of-state 01 FFL does NOT need to be enrolled in the CFLC to transfer/ship a C&R Long Gun to a Type 03.
So there is no excuse of "I refuse to get permission from your CA DOJ".

[SilverTauron]

But surely you can agree that the reverse can be said too about the anti CA seller. By not selling perfectly legal items here, they're just contributing and promoting their own gun-control on CA firearm owners which the anti's LOVE, because it's no work for them by having the snake eats it's own tail. Gun-control from an anti is expected, but gun-control from your own kind is foolish. The key is educating out-of-state sellers to keep selling items here is the best option we have at this point in the game, and actually limits gun-control on us. If we don't, we lose on both fronts and one of them being friendly-fire from our own.


I disagree with this argument, and I duly hope that some reasoned understanding is possible on why I do.

Were it up to your political reps who, it must be conceded,were elected by your state peers, there would be a blanket ban on civil arms in California. Forget about rosters, AWB, and flowcharts;their goal is no guns period for anyone not on the state or Federal payroll.

In recognition of the fact that such a ban doesn't pass judicial scrutiny, those same politicians are forced to play a game with the law like teenagers on a date-how close to a desired total ban can they get without crossing the line into "infringement"? Thus we have the hodgepodge of laws in CA like the AWB, the Magazine laws, the Roster, and your laws regarding illegal and legal transfer of a firearm-all of which are meant to do in piecemeal what Britian's laws on firearms accomplish in one volume of statues.

With that point established, what an out of state FFL does in terms of a sale or not doesn't change the status quo. Your elected leaders have a warped worldview on the 2nd Amendment, and another SKS being shipped into the state won't change that. If anything, it gives the gun grabbers a superficial chance to ruin someone's livelihood for political hay. If a state senator loses his marbles over a 3 centimeter wide button on an AR15, I can only imagine what coronary the knowledge of the existence of Gunbroker.com will cause.

Between the Roster, 1 in 30, waiting periods, and the fact that gunmakers must bribe your state overlords to sell their wares in California, saying out of state FFLs contribute to your unfortunate political situation by not selling items to CA is a red herring. On that basis we can argue that Ruger is contributing to the status quo by paying a monthly note to the DOJ for keeping its roster legal items on the list:they're literally funding continued infringement in your rights by sending money to the DOJ, as is every other firm on the approved list. If Joe FFL is supporting the gun grabbers by not sending arms to CA, what of the companies that are playing the game to sell there?

[SanPedroShooter]

I think ST and GOEX both make good points from different sides of the issue. And I suppose it may be logically impossible, but I think they are both right. It depends on what side of the transaction you are I suppose.

If you are an FFL in a free state you will have to decide if arming people in a state that would absolutely ban most small arms if they could is worth it. It may be paranoid and illogical, but there is always the thought of 'what if they come after me? Is it worth a few hundred bucks?

I appreciate the efforts of most FFLs that will send arms over the wire. The ones that wont seem to be difficulte to reason with.

[wheels]

I think ST and GOEX both make good points from different sides of the issue. And I suppose it may be logically impossible, but I think they are both right. It depends on what side of the transaction you are I suppose.

If you are an FFL in a free state you will have to decide if arming people in a state that would absolutely ban most small arms if they could is worth it. It may be paranoid and illogical, but there is always the thought of 'what if they come after me? Is it worth a few hundred bucks?

I appreciate the efforts of most FFLs that will send arms over the wire. The ones that wont seem to be difficulte to reason with.

I agree they are both making good points, but if an out of state FFL ends up in the DOJ's sights a good lawyer to fight a bogus charge will probably run 10-50k to keep the out of state FFL out of jail. That's would take a lot of CA sales at a reasonable profit margin to justify the risk.

Imagine the out of state FFL who ships something completely legal into CA that gets used in a high profile shooting here - is the risk worth the reward? The FFL will be the scapegoat - period.

If the out of state dealer does not want to have to stay current with the federal laws, his state laws and then CA's laws (which are revised every year it seems) I can't blame them for that - they should be cautious where their livelihood is concerned.

The FFLS that are willing to deal with CA buyers should be thanked, it is an extra risk - just as the legislators in CA wanted.