1 in 30 violation when it wasn't

[kemasa]

that may be the case, but didn't CADOJ start canceling DROSes that were being entered as 30-day exempt? And in addition, with the current lawsuit about the 03+COE combo being valid for all handguns, not just C&R, isn't CADOJ fighting that because they are saying that it is only to be used for C&R handguns?

From what I have heard, they call and say that they want to cancel it. If they can get the FFL to agree, then there is no problem for them. If the FFL objects, then they let it go.

If they want the CA PC to be something else, then they need to change it. As I said, there are references which say that it is just for C&R firearms, so if they had actually wanted it to just apply to C&R firearms, then they have shown that they were able to limit it it and they didn't.

[ke6guj]

From what I have heard, they call and say that they want to cancel it. If they can get the FFL to agree, then there is no problem for them. If the FFL objects, then they let it go.

wasn't aware that they are only trying to scare FFLs into canceling, thought that they had actually cancelled some.

If they want the CA PC to be something else, then they need to change it. As I said, there are references which say that it is just for C&R firearms, so if they had actually wanted it to just apply to C&R firearms, then they have shown that they were able to limit it it and they didn't.

I agree, but they are arguing in court that it does mean that the exemption only applies to C&R handguns,

http://public.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/doe-v-harris/2014-06-24-doe-v-harris-def-opp-mpi-mpa.pdf

http://public.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/doe-v-harris/2014-06-24-doe-v-harris-declaration-stephen-lindley-iso-opp-mpi.pdf

[Baboosh]

The John Doe in that case is a Calgun member, wasn't his DROS cancelled?

[ke6guj]

The John Doe in that case is a Calgun member, wasn't his DROS cancelled?

it was Alvin Doe, and IIRC, the FFL that did the transfer did mention that he did have his DROS canceled.

[kemasa]

wasn't aware that they are only trying to scare FFLs into canceling, thought that they had actually cancelled some.

My question is whether the FFL objected or not.

I agree, but they are arguing in court that it does mean that the exemption only applies to C&R handguns,

What they argue in court may be different than what they are actually doing.

http://public.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/doe-v-harris/2014-06-24-doe-v-harris-def-opp-mpi-mpa.pdf

http://public.calgunsfoundation.org/...so-opp-mpi.pdf

That is funny. Lindley (bottom of page 2) claims that there is some sort of Federal law which allows a FFL dealer to sell curio and relics out of state, but not other firearms. That is blatantly false. A FFL can buy firearms and sell them to anyone in any state, but it has to be shipped to a FFL in that state. The C&R FFL is not a dealer. Quite clearly he has no idea of what he is talking about. He also seems to claim that the COE is just about worthless, but that is basically the same as the DROS background check. Item 6 is bogus as well since not all C&R are expensive, nor do they use "special" ammo. He is missing the curio aspect, which can actually be a modern firearm. He also claims, with no basis, that those who use the C&R 1 in 30 exemption as just straw purchases, which happens to be illegal, so if that were actually the case, then they should do something about it. Item 8 is just as bogus claiming that those who go to the effort of getting a C&R FFL and COE are likely criminals. It my opinion it seems more like a work of Fiction than reality, yet who is calling them on this aspect?

Harris' arguments are interesting as well. She seems to ignore firearms dropping off the certified list or the change in the law regarding SSEs, as well where is the proof that anyone is trying to amass large arsenals of weapons? I thought that the claim was that the person wanted to buy them in order to sell them as part of a straw purchase. She seems to assume that most firearm purchasers are criminals, which is offensive.

She also seems to claim that there is something very different about C&R firearms. What is the difference between a 1911 and a 1911 National Match (which is on the C&R list)?

One joke is that the claim that the 1 in 30 will actually do something. If the person is committing a crime by re-selling it, violating Federal law as a straw purchase or CA law requiring it to go through a dealer, then what is to stop the person from buying the firearms in a free state and illegally bringing them into CA? Criminals don't follow the law.

The example that Harris likes to use is a Glock Gen4, yet that firearm is not on the certified list. That seems like quite a strange firearm to use as an example, but then again there is no such model, it would be a Glock 17 Gen4 or some other model.

Look at the waiting period exemption for C&R firearms for a person who has a C&R FFL and COE, in that they limited it to C&R firearms, which shows that they can impose a limit, so the lack of limit for the 1 in 30 shows that either they did not want the limit or they did not know what they were doing. They can correct the law, if they so choose, but that assumes that they made a mistake.

Perhaps the 1 in 30 should also apply to LEOs, based on Harris' arguments :-).

[Baboosh]

Spoke to the person who is Alvin Doe and it was the DOJ that cancelled the DROS

[kemasa]

Did the CA DOJ call the FFL?

Did the FFL object to the DROS being cancelled?

[Baboosh]

Did the CA DOJ call the FFL?

Did the FFL object to the DROS being cancelled?

I'll get clarification but it was the DOJ that cancelled the DROS not the FFL.

[kemasa]

Yes, but was it cancelled before or after the DOJ called the FFL.