Sales Tax advice

[nedro]

CA PC 27699?

You are only exempt from 27585 under 27565. 27585 is not limited to when you are out of state, that is what 27565 is about.

Here is how it works:

Given A*B=A*C and C=B+1. This is true for the case were A=0.

A*B/A=A*C/A (divide by A on both sides).

B = C

B = B + 1 (substitute for C as listed above)

B - B = B - B + 1

0 = 1

Now can you tell me where this all went wrong?

Well , you can't divide by 0.
So pay your God Damned Tax!

[kemasa]

There is a separate section for importing into CA. That section appears to be for acquiring a C&R long gun in CA. Following that section does not appear to exempt you from the other section.

[six seven tango]

A C&R FFL is not a dealer's license.

I never said it was.

Please explain how being exempt to 27966 makes you exempt from 27585.

I also never claimed that 27966 exempts me from 27585.



Since you won't even accept what I'm saying from a DEALER who does a substantial amount of business with CA (see thread on your unsolicited advice here), and it's obvious that you can't be reasoned with, as far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.

[kemasa]

Quite interesting, but the fact is that those who are trying to defend that it is legal to ship a C&R long gun ignore the CA PC and refuse to explain how they claim it is allowed when there are sections which says that it is not allowed.

The CA PC states what is illegal. This means that you can't claim that what is allowed in one section means that you are exempt from another section, especially when the first section does not mention importing into CA and the other one does.

What you might be able to get away with is far different when you post in public what you are doing since there are those reading public forums which might take notice.

[kemasa]

Since you won't even accept what I'm saying from a DEALER who does a substantial amount of business with CA (see thread on your unsolicited advice here), and it's obvious that you can't be reasoned with, as far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.

I look at the CA PC, not what people claim.

Nice personal attack, but what it really says is that you can't defend your position and since you have nothing reasonable to say, you have to go with personal attacks. I pointed out the CA PC which seems to make it not legal. So far there have been absurd claims that because the firearm is delivered to your door, you are not importing it, as well that because a transfer is allowed (which does not mention importing), then the section which says that you can't import into CA such a firearm without going through a CA dealer can be ignored. None of that makes sense. That shows that it is not possible to have a rational conversation about this issue because nothing will convince you that you are wrong and you can't show how it is legal when faced with the CA PC.

[kemasa]

A simple question. 27585 says that you can't import a C&R into CA if you are licensed collector unless you comply with 27565. So tell me how exactly you get around that. Stay away from the absurd claims that if it is delivered to your door that you are not importing since it does not make sense.

[condor]

Since this thread has drifted off into a debate on shipping legalities of C&R firearms, this site may answer all of your positions... on both sides of the fence.

https://www.empirearms.com/cal-ffl.htm

I also find that I was off base in thinking that a C&R could be shipped directly to my home address. Not true. It still has to be processed by a FFL01. I sometimes get confused between a C&R and Black Powder, and what applies to what.... Well not so much the BP, but C&R gets a little foggy....

[kemasa]

There are threads which were posted which have talked about this issue. So far none have really explained in a logical manner how it would be legal in regards to 27585 & 27565 since 27585 talks specifically about importing into CA and 27565 says that the collector has to acquire the firearm outside of CA, vs. getting the firearm inside of CA.

Those who think it is legal can't or won't explain exactly how they come to that claim and it does not seem that anything will convince them that they might be wrong. They might be correct, but if so then they should be able to show how and they have not done that. Saying that one section allows for it, but which does not talk about importing and another section which does not and does talk about importing seems pretty clear to me.