Ammo Sales / Transfer on 1/1/2018

[dvs762]

BOE told me an official bulletin on this whole thing is expected within the next couple of weeks. they just had a meeting yesterday about this. but yeah. tax is due...

[ugimports]

I wonder if some of my questions will be answered in the bulletin as well to make it more official. I'm assuming they were barraged with questions maybe some similar to mine.

[ugimports]

Here's what we decided on for now: http://ugimports.com/ammoxfer

[acespawnshop]

So we got an email from a customer who has asked about ordering ammo online and we gave him our fees and such. He emailed back saying the vendor is requesting that the customer upload OUR ammo vendor license with his purchase and the customer wants us to send our license to him. Thoughts? We don't send our FFL out to private individuals why would this be any different?

[ugimports]

So we got an email from a customer who has asked about ordering ammo online and we gave him our fees and such. He emailed back saying the vendor is requesting that the customer upload OUR ammo vendor license with his purchase and the customer wants us to send our license to him. Thoughts? We don't send our FFL out to private individuals why would this be any different?

I wouldn't do it just for the sake of us knowing what's coming. We also provide a link to FFL EzCheck that the customer can provide a vendor as well. Seems like anyone could technically forge an ammo vendor license and get ammo shipped anywhere they want. There's no way for the shipper/vendor to validate the info on it anyway.

In the case of FFLs at least they can validate that info via ezCheck.

[upsdude]

i would send the vendor the information, not the customer. it's too easy for that customer to take that info and use it as his own for private ammo sales.

[kemasa]

It is always best to send direct.

[acespawnshop]

Thanks, new question. What is everyone doing when you get multiple orders from different places? Ex Customer A buys 1000 rounds from Palmetto State, then buys 1000 rounds from cheaper than dirt?

[Santa Cruz Armory]

At this point we're sticking with our under 5000, over 5000 and over 10,000 round fee schedule. $20, $25 and contact for quote respectively

[Santa Cruz Armory]

At this point we're sticking with our under 5000, over 5000 and over 10,000 round fee schedule. $20, $25 and contact for quote respectively

[Cortelli]

see feedback on Ammo PPT procedure in OP

Hi ugimports -

TL;DR - I think DOJ's written guidance to you regarding fee limits for processing PPTs via the internet is dead wrong.

"Short" discussion

It's odd that DOJ advised you that the fee limits for a PPT of ammo was $10, and cited CA PEN section 30364. This was the proposed law under SB 1235 if Prop 63 didn't pass. However,Prop 63 did away with this (there was also an obligation on an LAV / FFL01 to process PPTs in SB1235, but that also went away with Prop 63). Section 30364 doesn't exist.

Section 30364 only became operative under SB 1235 if Prop 63 failed. But SB 1235 also provided that if Prop 63 was passed, then much of it would go away, and only 3 sections in SB 1235 would be effective. Newly created section 30364 would not be effective if Prop 63 passed (which of course it did). As a consequence, CA PEN 30364 does not exist today.

The max administrative fee for PPTs of ammo (paid to FFL) is left to the DOJ under section 30312 created by Prop 63, which is in addition to any fees charged directly by DOJ. This authorization is contained in CA PEN section 30312(a)(2); and the implementing regs (CA Code of Regs, Title 11, Chap 5, Section 4263) provide for a max fee of $5, although it doesn't speak to any additional DOJ fees for such transactions. If you look at DOJ's responses to public comment on the proposed (now approved) ammo vendor regulations, they say a couple of times that they set the $5 limit in order to incent LAVs to conduct these transactions.

I believe that the advice you received from DOJ seems just plain wrong, not least because CA PEN 30364 doesn't exist. Or maybe they've just decided to impose a $5 DOJ fee in addition to the LAV / FFL max admin fee of $5 but not published that decision anywhere, nor explained why the DOJ fee is justified, nor explained how they derived this fee in advance of any background check or record-keeping requirements, nor cured themselves of quoting sections of code that don't exist in California law.

(I'm not an FFL01 - just trying to stay on top of the new ammo laws enacted by SB 1235 and Prop 63).

I don't want to mess up your thread with links to all this stuff (that would be the "Long Discussion" post), but I am happy to provide them in this thread if you think it warranted.



I'll finish by saying I am very happy to see our CA FFLs looking for ways to assist their customers with ammo purchases as cost-effectively as possible while still not damaging their own businesses. I wish you all the best of luck in navigating this mess, helping your customers, and growing your businesses.

[ugimports]

Hi ugimports -

TL;DR - I think DOJ's written guidance to you regarding fee limits for processing PPTs via the internet is dead wrong.

"Short" discussion

It's odd that DOJ advised you that the fee limits for a PPT of ammo was $10, and cited CA PEN section 30364. This was the proposed law under SB 1235 if Prop 63 didn't pass. However,Prop 63 did away with this (there was also an obligation on an LAV / FFL01 to process PPTs in SB1235, but that also went away with Prop 63). Section 30364 doesn't exist.

Section 30364 only became operative under SB 1235 if Prop 63 failed. But SB 1235 also provided that if Prop 63 was passed, then much of it would go away, and only 3 sections in SB 1235 would be effective. Newly created section 30364 would not be effective if Prop 63 passed (which of course it did). As a consequence, CA PEN 30364 does not exist today.

The max administrative fee for PPTs of ammo (paid to FFL) is left to the DOJ under section 30312 created by Prop 63, which is in addition to any fees charged directly by DOJ. This authorization is contained in CA PEN section 30312(a)(2); and the implementing regs (CA Code of Regs, Title 11, Chap 5, Section 4263) provide for a max fee of $5, although it doesn't speak to any additional DOJ fees for such transactions. If you look at DOJ's responses to public comment on the proposed (now approved) ammo vendor regulations, they say a couple of times that they set the $5 limit in order to incent LAVs to conduct these transactions.

I believe that the advice you received from DOJ seems just plain wrong, not least because CA PEN 30364 doesn't exist. Or maybe they've just decided to impose a $5 DOJ fee in addition to the LAV / FFL max admin fee of $5 but not published that decision anywhere, nor explained why the DOJ fee is justified, nor explained how they derived this fee in advance of any background check or record-keeping requirements, nor cured themselves of quoting sections of code that don't exist in California law.

(I'm not an FFL01 - just trying to stay on top of the new ammo laws enacted by SB 1235 and Prop 63).

I don't want to mess up your thread with links to all this stuff (that would be the "Long Discussion" post), but I am happy to provide them in this thread if you think it warranted.



I'll finish by saying I am very happy to see our CA FFLs looking for ways to assist their customers with ammo purchases as cost-effectively as possible while still not damaging their own businesses. I wish you all the best of luck in navigating this mess, helping your customers, and growing your businesses.

bolded - Not sure what you're referring to PPT of internet purchases.

The rest of what you discuss was covered in the TL;DR. As I mentioned I merely copy/pasted the answers I received (no additional vetting by me). It does illustrate that the law is so confusing those that are meant to audit against it are not even 100% sure what is correct.

No need for additional links for now since the relevant PC is in the middle of the thread somewhere as well.

[Cortelli]

bolded - Not sure what you're referring to PPT of internet purchases.

Sorry - was referring to your first question & answer reported as a written response re: processing of transfers of internet ammo for customers. I thought you were referring to handling an internet delivery as a PPT under the ammo laws.

DOJ's written response to you in regards to this apparently referred to a $10 fee per transaction, per CA PEN code 30364. I was surprised that DOJ was both responding in writing and citing a code section that doesn't exist. The original section 30364 dealt with PPTs; I am still not clear on whether DOJ will see a transfer of ammo purchased over the internet as a PPT (even though it is clearly not a FTF PPT).

In reading the laws and regs, I was (and am) under the impression that a LAV (including those deemed licensed by virtue of being a CFD) could charge varying fees (including above $10 per transaction) WRT internet purchases processed for local customers.

It does illustrate that the law is so confusing those that are meant to audit against it are not even 100% sure what is correct.

Wholeheartedly agree. In fact, my point was that I don't think DOJ is at all clear as to what is correct (in terms of potential audit issues, fees, etc.), which would seem to put those of you with a dealer's license trying to sort this all out for the benefit of both your customers and your business in the untenable / unenviable position of flying by the seats of your pants.

[ugimports]

...
Wholeheartedly agree. In fact, my point was that I don't think DOJ is at all clear as to what is correct (in terms of potential audit issues, fees, etc.), which would seem to put those of you with a dealer's license trying to sort this all out for the benefit of both your customers and your business in the untenable / unenviable position of flying by the seats of your pants.

I think this is why a bulletin will be coming out to ensure at least all the dealers have the same consistent info (right or wrong)...

[upsdude]

so hows it going so far with the shipments? any complaints about the acceptance rates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro