Posted: 6/11/2008 4:03:23 PM EDT
|
California Firearms Licensee Check I don't know why California tries to make it so hard to do business with you. As a dealer, I need to get an approval letter EVERY TIME I ship a gun to a dealer in Cali. Sorry if this is a dupe, but I just got the letter from The Cali DOJ today............frustrating. Does you DOJ not trust FFL dealers? |
|
Yup, I've heard about it. My husband and I are 07/02's. We've decided that to protest this, we will still provide products and services to the public in CA (not that many of our products are CA-legal), but we absolutely will not deal with CA law enforcement or state agencies. |
Bubbles, your continued support is appreciated and you deserve recognition for it. Thanks to you and your husband for not making a blanket decision about no longer selling firearms to the citizens of California despite the added hassle. 
|
|
We made the business decision to halt all sales to California upon receipt of this notification. These are troubling times indeed. Copy of Letter ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/2008-BOF-05.pdf TD |
why would they trust us CA FFLs? we shall see how it pans out. im thinking it will be another FFL EZ Chec, as there is a website to get the letter from... what really sucks is we have to save each letter for 3 years... and write the letter number for each gun in out A&D logs... sigh... more senseless work.... |
I found this on another forum. It's a March 2007 letter from NRA Liason Paul Payne regarding the NRA's position on AB2521. Rick, As promised, I looked into the AB2521 issue from the 2006 California Legislative Session. I am told that AB2521 was a bill that was sponsored by the CA-DOJ and it was not opposed by the California Association Firearms Retailers (CAFR). Also, I have conferred with NRA's legal team and other NRA Staff and received the following: The following is a quick summary of the effect of the changes to Penal Code section 12072(f) by Assembly Bill 2521: Under Penal Code section 12072(f) federal firearms licensees are required to obtain a unique verification number for the recipient (if, and only if, the recipient is also a federal firearms licensee) from the California Department of Justice via the internet. This requirement is akin to the EZ Check system implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. This section also requires the same seller to include a copy of the unique verification number along with the firearm to the recipient. This requirement does not apply to private party sales processed through a California dealer where the out of state seller is an individual and not a federal firearms licensee. This requirement is not in effect until July 1, 2008, and is subject to DOJ processing regulations. Hopefully, this will calm-down anyone on the Internet, or other places, who thinks that the NRA didn't do it's (our) job. I look forward to reading the retractions and/or clarifications from those who quickly jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding AB2521. If there is anything else I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know. Paul |
"who thinks that the NRA didn't do it's (our) job." Exactly... Nothing. This is the typical rhetoric that most have come to accept as SOP from the NRA. Geez, there are more gun owners than registered democrats in California yet they keep getting this stuff passed. Why? |
Or what? |
|
|
i contacted the DOJ to ask what purpose this law was supposed to serve or how they thought this would help stop crime of any kind. of course i was just transferred from one department to another until i would get someones answering machine asking me to leave a message, which i eventually did. i am still confused on how they expect this law to stop crime of any kind. it is obviously one more regulation imposed to discourage dealers from selling to California. they have not been able to ban gun ownership in California so they are just going to regulate it to the point that no company will deal with California. if i ever get a response from the DOJ i will post what they say. |
|
This is not the DOJ BoF's fault. This is just bad legislation that got passed. The intent was to stop outside FFLs from shipping to invalid CA FFLs or those forging FFLs. But it's stupid, and DOJ BoF is forced to implement it - and they implemented it in the most tame way possible (if they step over their bounds we can challenge overassertion of authority at the OAL, Office of Admin. Law level). User 'jrzy' should learn how to read the item he posted/quoted. That only refers to the CA FFL. Just sign up on the website and print out the letter and you'll have CA biz. It's an added effort, yes, but it shouldn't be that burdensome. I know I won't mind paying an extra $10 (for) the out of state FFL to do this paperwork. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
Bill, was this happening very often? I know fradulent things happen all the time in every industry but this new proceedure seems kind of heavy handed for something that rarely occurs. |
this was my same thought and i was going to ask the same question. i cant believe this happens very often. |
|
"It's an added effort, yes, but it shouldn't be that burdensome. I know I won't mind paying an extra $10 (for) the out of state FFL to do this paperwork." I for one don't care whether its burdensome, once you sign up, and acknowledge it, if something gets screwed up, then WE become liable for complying with, and enforcing, or not enforcing California law. Federal Laws should pre-empt any local laws, just like when the feds come in, and bust the Medical Marijuana places in California. On the same note, I, as a non resident, should not be forced to do ANYTHING to comply with California law. Whats next, forcing me to collect Sales Tax from California residents, and send that in, at no cost? No, I really feel sorry for you guys in Cali, but, you are going to suffer because of the decisions your state has made. And sooner or later, you are really going to have to consider leaving your state, if they continue down this road of rights degradation. The BATFE tells me that I need a copy of your FFL to ship you a gun, it says nothing about ME, complying with a law from another state. I fail to see where I have broken a law, here, where I drop the firearm off at UPS. Hell, some cities in Cali, won't enforce Federal Immigration laws, out and out refusing to police or arrest <Edited to remove ethnic slur - HD40>, and now, they want FFL's from every other state in the Union to go out of their way to comply with a nuisance law? Fill out the paperwork, screw that, I won't do it, and if it means I lose a sale, then so be it, but perhaps it IS going to take isolating Cali from the other states, and just plain REFUSING to do ANY business at all with people, or businesses from Cali. |
Maybe you should take the time to ask what I meant instead of attacking my reading ability slick. I understand perfectly what I read. I have been reading since I was 4. The point of the underlined text in the pic is : What can they do to an out of state FFL like my self who shipped to one of the cali FFL's without signing up for their jerk off nonsense. It says the recipient is committing the crime? Just more stupid fucking BS from cali |
As much as it pains me to type this: When I received my FFL I agreed to obey all Federal laws and also any and all state laws when shipping or receiving firearms. I 100 percent agree with you that the Fed needs to step in and tell them they are interfering with interstate commerce. I think thats the strongest point we have. Violating certain acts of the laws pertaining to interstate commerce have real teeth and the fed in the past has threatened to take away funding for all sorts of things including matching hwy funding. scares the shit out of most states. With cali in such financial hardship it wouldn't take much of a threat. |
Exactly. Its just like the magazine ban, its not enforceable on anyone outside of CA. And this only applies to dealers/retailers, not private individuals. The absolute easiest way around this, is for retailers to send the items here as themselves, and not using the company's name at all. 
|
That could put one's license at risk. We are under the microscope enough as it is. As an 07/02, I wouldn't risk it. I'll try to comply for civilian sales, I like to support private gun ownership ESPECIALLY for CA citizens, but LE/Military may get cut off. I don't know if I can afford to do that though. The rules are mindless. July 1st, we will make the decision. I will also discuss this with Mack Gwinn of MGI. they are currently supplying San Bernadino PD with rifles. I would like to take the "no guns to Cali" stance, but I don't want to help their plan of slowing/stopping the flow of guns to your state. |
Thank you. While some FFLs may not want to do the extra work others will take up the slack and Californians will reward them with biz and understand if any fee increase on that end occurs. I agree that an FFL should not try to route an item as a 'private citizen shipping to CA FFL' exemption from CFLC, that's waaaay too funky. Once registered, for some FFLs the phone call-in# may be faster than website, not sure. Frankly the DOJ has made this as easy as the law mandates and has not taken extra steps to make this harder. The law is at fault, not the DOJ here. The goal was to stop invalid folks (expired/forged FFLs w/bad addresses) from getting weapons. Also, the DOJ is understaffed/underbudget. They're a bit worn down from various activities and at this point they ain't after outta-state FFLs for day to day behavior. The CFLC law penalizes the CA dealer, not the out of state FFL - the only way they could go after the outta state FFL is for gross malfeasance (i.e, complete ignoring of the law for an extended period). There willl be audit trails of access to the database so even if paperwork goes missing (i.e, damaged package) there will be activity under your userId covering you. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
|
Well, I just signed up. It took me all of about five minutes. Is it bullshit? Yes, completely. Do I like it? No. But it's just another obvious roadblock to keep legal guns out of occupied territory and I'm not inclined to help them do that. If there's anything anyone in the forum ever needs and can't get someone outside CA to ship just give me a holler and so long as it's kosher I will gladly take the business. |
Thank you, Muddy. We remember who's willing to help us and not be intimidated by some paperwork. Speaking for many here, we know this CA stuff is a lotta BS, and we appreciate (and are willing to pay extra $) for the extra time involved. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
|
My first time visiting the California Hometown section, somehow I knew you folks would be taking about this CA DOJ subject I’ll be signing up for the program too. Nothing really complicated with the paperwork, if you can properly log your bound book and file away the 4473 you’ve got organizational skills to comply with the CFLC. The more of us that sign up the more we can help the good people of California (and help thwart the gun-grabbing politicians in the process  ) |
CA LE has a history of lobbying for gun control, so my company is cutting them off. We'll still sell to the military. |
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Taking the Ronnie Barrett approach are we? GOOD FOR YOU GUYS!!!!!!!
|
|
The cali FFL's did not oppose this POS legislation. Why? Because they knew it would cut of some internet sales from FFL's who would not jump through this cali spawned hoop. I still believe this violates Federal laws regarding interstate commerce. In retrospect I will be signing up for CFLC program. I have quite a few customers in cali and they are good people. I thought about it long and hard and have been the victim of this anti gun BS myself having spent most of my entire adulthood in jersey. |
That is a very very very bad idea. If you are an FFL, you should just fill out the form and send the stuff with the gun. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |