CFLC FFL Expired Early!

[EBR Works]

Our FFL does not expire until 04/01/17. The CFLC system has already flagged our license as expired. We have not received our new license yet, but Easy-Check shows it renewed. Anybody got a phone number to call CADOJ. We have a bunch of stuff here that we cannot ship..

Thanks.

[kemasa]

It is not quite that it is marked as expired, it is marked as no longer valid. They seem to keep the complete FFL number so the old number is no longer is the BATF FFL database.

I don't have any phone numbers other than what has been published.

You can send email to dojcflc@doj.ca.gov.

It is also possible to ship and then get it sorted out and email the number to the FFL afterwards, but that is clearly not ideal.

[EBR Works]

Thanks for that. I called the ATF and got the new FFL # and expiration date. They said that hard copy was mailed 2 days ago. I entered that info into "renew FFL" in CFLC and it will now allow me to create shipments. I just have to fax the new complete FFL to them eventually.

[PolishMike]

Thanks for that. I called the ATF and got the new FFL # and expiration date. They said that hard copy was mailed 2 days ago. I entered that info into "renew FFL" in CFLC and it will now allow me to create shipments. I just have to fax the new complete FFL to them eventually.

The system is stupid and pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EBR Works]

The system is stupid and pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No argument there..

[kemasa]

It is stupid, but not quite pointless. What it confirms is that the FFL has all of the required licenses and permits to conduct business. Kind of like ezcheck to a higher degree, but it is poorly done and has a lot of issues.

Do you want to do business who is illegally operating as a FFL? Of course not.

[EBR Works]

.and yet EasyCheck is good enough for everywhere other than CA.

[kemasa]

excheck is limited, it is only about the FFL, not all the other required permits/licenses which are required to do business. Even if a person has a FFL, it does not mean that it is legal for the person to conduct business.

As I said, there is a point to it, even if it is badly done and other issues.

[PolishMike]

It is stupid, but not quite pointless. What it confirms is that the FFL has all of the required licenses and permits to conduct business. Kind of like ezcheck to a higher degree, but it is poorly done and has a lot of issues.

Do you want to do business who is illegally operating as a FFL? Of course not.

It's not my job to make sure that they have a local city license or approval from their HOA. If the FFL checks out on ezcheck it should be enough.

Are you calling an FFL's city hall in Oregon to see if they have a valid business license?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kemasa]

It's not my job to make sure that they have a local city license or approval from their HOA. If the FFL checks out on ezcheck it should be enough.

Quite funny. It is not your job to check on them, then you say that the ezcheck is enough, so which is it? Why should you check on ezcheck at all? Isn't that what you are saying below?

It becomes your job when you are forced to, but remember ezcheck is NOT forced on you, so does that make it ok?

Are you calling an FFL's city hall in Oregon to see if they have a valid business license?

What a stupid question to ask, but I guess you have to try to come up with something in order to try to defend your baseless position, which is that you can't see a point when it is in your face.

It was said that it was pointless and the fact is that it isn't. No one likes it, but there is a point. Too bad people can't be honest and quite often just can't see reality as they just want to be completely against anything that they "enemy" comes up with.

In some respects it would be nice if there ezcheck system ensured that the FFL was completely legit, but I am sure that the government would make a mess of it if they tried.

[PolishMike]

CFLC FFL Expired Early!

Quite funny. It is not your job to check on them, then you say that the ezcheck is enough, so which is it? Why should you check on ezcheck at all? Isn't that what you are saying below?



It becomes your job when you are forced to, but remember ezcheck is NOT forced on you, so does that make it ok?







What a stupid question to ask, but I guess you have to try to come up with something in order to try to defend your baseless position, which is that you can't see a point when it is in your face.



It was said that it was pointless and the fact is that it isn't. No one likes it, but there is a point. Too bad people can't be honest and quite often just can't see reality as they just want to be completely against anything that they "enemy" comes up with.



In some respects it would be nice if there ezcheck system ensured that the FFL was completely legit, but I am sure that the government would make a mess of it if they tried.

Way to take that out of context.

It is my job to make sure that I am sending guns to a legit FFL at the correct address to verify that the license has not been tampered with. It is not my job to check and see if they have paid dros fees, paid their coe fee, or any other bull**** that shouldn't exist in the first place.

With the existence of ezcheck the CFLC program is completely useless and every doj inspector I have ever had completely agrees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kemasa]

Way to take that out of context.

Not at all, it is quite in context, but you just don't like what it means to your argument.

It is my job to make sure that I am sending guns to a legit FFL at the correct address to verify that the license has not been tampered with. It is not my job to check and see if they have paid dros fees, paid their coe fee, or any other bull**** that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Please explain why you think you should use ezcheck and not the CFLC. Ezcheck only check part of the requirements and the person could still not be allowed to legally receive firearms. You are not even required to use ezcheck.

It is quite funny that in one case you think that you should check on the person who you are sending a firearm to, but in another case you don't. That is quite the conflict in your position.

One could argue that a FFL should not be required as well, but you seem to accept that for some odd reason.

With the existence of ezcheck the CFLC program is completely useless and every doj inspector I have ever had completely agrees.

Which came first?

If every CA DOJ inspector agrees, either they are idiots or they were lying to you. It serves a purpose, even though it should not be done in the way it was. A flag to ezcheck would be far more reasonable.

There is the stupid aspect that with the CFLC non-FFLs can't use it to check the status of a FFL, which shows a major issue with it, but you still should be able to see that there is a point in knowing that the person you are sending a firearm to is following all the laws, whereas the ezcheck only says that they have a FFL and not that it is even valid since in order for it to be valid, they have to have all the other required permits and licenses.

[PolishMike]

Not at all, it is quite in context, but you just don't like what it means to your argument.







Please explain why you think you should use ezcheck and not the CFLC. Ezcheck only check part of the requirements and the person could still not be allowed to legally receive firearms. You are not even required to use ezcheck.



It is quite funny that in one case you think that you should check on the person who you are sending a firearm to, but in another case you don't. That is quite the conflict in your position.



One could argue that a FFL should not be required as well, but you seem to accept that for some odd reason.







Which came first?



If every CA DOJ inspector agrees, either they are idiots or they were lying to you. It serves a purpose, even though it should not be done in the way it was. A flag to ezcheck would be far more reasonable.



There is the stupid aspect that with the CFLC non-FFLs can't use it to check the status of a FFL, which shows a major issue with it, but you still should be able to see that there is a point in knowing that the person you are sending a firearm to is following all the laws, whereas the ezcheck only says that they have a FFL and not that it is even valid since in order for it to be valid, they have to have all the other required permits and licenses.

I don't think you should have to use ezcheck. Gun dealers in the US in 2017 shouldn't have to rely on getting a paper copy of a license that hasn't changed in 70? Years.

I guess the thing is I don't care if the receiving dealer has everything in order. I couldn't care less. I want to make sure that sending a firearm to a licensed federal firearms dealer. That is all I care about.

I also hate the fact that it creates a headache for dealers out of state to deal with a special ca system - I agree it is easy but it is another unnecessary step especially for dealers who don't even know what a coe or cfd is. Why should I get in trouble if some dealer sends me a gun without a check letter? How is that my fault?

I stand by my argument that it is 100% pointless and unnecessary.

If you are so worried about all the other requirements of having an FFL then why are you not asking for out of state dealers business licenses, sales tax records, and colonoscopy results?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kemasa]

I don't think you should have to use ezcheck. Gun dealers in the US in 2017 shouldn't have to rely on getting a paper copy of a license that hasn't changed in 70? Years.

So how do you think that it should be confirmed? You don't think that you should have to use ezcheck and you don't think that FFL should have to get a paper copy.

You do know that you don't have to get a paper copy and you have not had to get one in years. First fax was added, then now by email. Paper copy is just one of three options.

70 years?

I guess the thing is I don't care if the receiving dealer has everything in order. I couldn't care less. I want to make sure that sending a firearm to a licensed federal firearms dealer. That is all I care about.

They are not really a licensed federal firearms dealer unless they have everything in order.

I also hate the fact that it creates a headache for dealers out of state to deal with a special ca system - I agree it is easy but it is another unnecessary step especially for dealers who don't even know what a coe or cfd is. Why should I get in trouble if some dealer sends me a gun without a check letter? How is that my fault?

I never talked about whether it was easy or not, just whether there was a point to it or not.

It does create problems and it is poorly done. If the goal was really to ensure that a firearm is not shipped to anyone other than a FFL who has all the paperwork in order, then non-FFLs would be able to use it as well. It is really done to harass FFLs, but there is still the point that you know that the FFL has all the required licenses and permits.

Has any FFL ever gotten into trouble?

It is not your fault, other than for living in CA and not having the sense to get out.

I stand by my argument that it is 100% pointless and unnecessary.

I have already shown that there is a point to it. I also said that it is a mess as well.

If you are so worried about all the other requirements of having an FFL then why are you not asking for out of state dealers business licenses, sales tax records, and colonoscopy results?

There you go again with stupid questions. You look pretty foolish when you feel the need to resort to such tactics and it shows that you are losing the discussion. There is no point to asking for things which don't apply to the business as well, but I guess you want to be absurd, don't you?

I never said I was worried about that, did I? All I said was that it assured that the person was fully in compliance with the law. If you knew that a person who had a FFL, but did not have all of the other required permits/licenses, would you ship a firearm to them anyhow?

[kemasa]

Ok, I could start a new thread, but the issue is almost the same. My FFL just renewed, so I knew to go to the CFLC web page to update the information.

Changing the FFL number and expiration date was not a problem. I did not change my email address and it decided that my business email address is invalid. It turns out that the domain has a "-" in it, which is valid, but the CA DOJ does not think it is anymore. I had to use another domain in order to be able to update my information.