Selling Firearms into the State of California – Why Not!!

[Fishslayer]

Originally Posted by Gunhacker

As an 03 (C&R) FFL holder in CA and possessing a CA COE (certificate of eligibility), I fall within many exclusions contained in CA guns laws when it involves a transaction of a C&R firearm as defined by the BATF.

The badges by your username would suggest that you are exempt from pretty much all of them, including the roster and magazine restrictions.

Originally Posted by handejector

I'm not going to let 'them' win because they made it hard by adding 3 minutes to the process, so we all gave up and simply let them win.

I got my SR1911 from a forum member in the midwest through SSE. He's a Kalifornistan transplant & told me it didn't really take a lot to keep up with the laws. As I understand it (and I could be wrong) it's on the buyer to make sure the gun can be transferred. In my case the seller & receiving FFL were both up to speed & on the same page so it was a painless, though somewhat pricey, process.

[pace40]

Originally Posted by handejector

Interesting, pace. That thought had never occurred to me. I'm not saying it is not a valid viewpoint, it just never occurred to me that I could be considered as giving tacit consent.

My thought process came from about 180 degrees out. My thoughts were more like- "How hard is it for me to help enthusiasts in CA to get the guns they want?"

Every time I ship one to CA, I think-
"HAH! We got another one by you stupid ___________s" (fill in the blank with the expletive of your choice)

I'm not going to let 'them' win because they made it hard by adding 3 minutes to the process, so we all gave up and simply let them win. ;

Hey ya Lee

Hope all is well.

Skip down to post #30...I'm meeting with my attorney Tuesday. I'll letcha know

[Gunhacker]

Originally Posted by Mike Grasso

The state is run by Los Angeles and San Francisco. Both liberal. Hell less than 40% of the voting population votes for the Presidency, we are our own worst enemy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I absolutely agree... complacency, especially during the mid-term (non general elections) year elections, when overall voter turn out is down right shameful, I feel the collective "we" let the camel's nose under the tent by allowing a minority, at the time, elect their candidates and pass CA propositions on the ballot.

I also think the other factor that help tilt the scales in the wrong direction over the years, is the mass exodus of conservatives from CA.

That made it even more critical for remaining voters to hold up their end at the ballot box, and that was a fail.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by pace40

As requested by the OP, I am in the process of reconsidering my position on California shipments. I have finished reviewing the CFLC manual begun in the post above and have submitted some questions to my attorney and asked him for a review regarding any increased risk brought about by CA Penal Code Sections 12072 - 12083 involved in this process.

I am doing this because I hold the US Constitution dear and feel the CA shipment rules are a blatant attack. However, to be clear, if counsel suggests that I expose myself to a greater legal risk than my business currently absorbs, I will balk whether anyone understands or not.

The OPs opening and subsequent comments were compelling enough for my to not just say no anymore and to complete a thorough review, which I am doing. I cannot, however, guarantee the outcome.

Good deal Mike.

[bigl1911]

Originally Posted by exSun

With a population of about 38 million, and about 8 million gun owners, virtually all of who can vote, the only reason that California isn't gun friendly is that gun owners do not vote for pro-gun politicians.

I've been thinking about your post for a few hours this evening and researching why we here in California have one of the strictest gun control laws in the US. It is not as if we have been looking at ballets and seeing these big signs from legislators over the last 25 years stating, "Hey this guy is an anti-gun liberal pile of s--t character this one isn't". It just wasn't that visible of a problem in the early 90's. It was never this simple and it just developed covertly without checks and balances while gained momentum over years like a virus.. I'm not going too deep into it forgetting for the moment I am not knowledgable(yet), but one thing is clear from research the first real motion into our current version of anti-gun was the 1989 Patrick Purdy/Stockton incident. This tragedy pushed a bill as a fear reaction to the incident giving us Penal Code 12275 - I believe the first phase of the assault weapons ban. You would think 25 years is a long time but in the political arena it is not a big stretch of time. Truth is the gun owners didn't see the storm as it developed slowly over years gaining more and more momentum.
And don't think we are sitting on our hands.. We are not... But the damage is there and it is not easy to repair at this point.. There are several lawsuits in play with some wins and losses. Point is don't think we are sitting here in the sunshine state (almost 90 degrees today) doing nothing... And one cannot compare our political and social situation to other states... The dynamics are very different with a completely opposing set of circumstances..

[pace40]

I did not get a lot of comforting information from my lawyer. There is an inherent increased risk based on his review of pertinent statues. I will, sip a 12 year old, sleep on it, and decide in the AM.

I'm tryin guys but its not a knee jerk decision.

[glowe]

Originally Posted by pace40

I did not get a lot of comforting information from my lawyer. There is an inherent increased risk based on his review of pertinent statues. I will, sip a 12 year old, sleep on it, and decide in the AM.

I'm tryin guys but its not a knee jerk decision.

There is no way to totally discount an increased risk potential. I think my biggest issue to overcome is potential liability exposure by selling into the state. I just do not feel that I am protected in any way from a state's attorney who wants to make a name for him or her-self. It makes me very nervous thinking that I could become part of a legal action just to set an example in the state.

[bigl1911]

Originally Posted by glowe

There is no way to totally discount an increased risk potential. I think my biggest issue to overcome is potential liability exposure by selling into the state. I just do not feel that I am protected in any way from a state's attorney who wants to make a name for him or her-self. It makes me very nervous thinking that I could become part of a legal action just to set an example in the state.

Gary,

I'm not sure what type of exposer one has when exporting into California. The one thing about the dros process is it eliminates any legal risk to the seller and buyer by confirming eligablity, the gun has not be used in a crime or stolen and buyer is not a criminal. As long as the FFL exporting complies with the DOJ approval process (5 minutes effort) there should be not option for any legal action? Someone call look at anyone and sue for the fun of it anywhere in the US. A good article:
California Gun Sales 101

[CDROBERTS]

Originally Posted by bigl1911

Gary,

I'm not sure what type of exposer one has when exporting into California. The one thing about the dros process is it eliminates any legal risk to the seller and buyer by confirming eligablity, the gun has not be used in a crime or stolen and buyer is not a criminal. As long as the FFL exporting complies with the DOJ approval process (5 minutes effort) there should be not option for any legal action? Someone call look at anyone and sue for the fun of it anywhere in the US. A good article:
California Gun Sales 101

The receiving FFL Takes the brunt of any problems. If the gun is not legal it is not going to get passed on to a customer... It is going to go RIGHT BACK to the sender. Which probably happened zero times last year.


Lawyers are the same guys that are the reason the owners manual is printed on the slide of the gun nowadays.

Can anyone come up with ONE sender ever charged with ANYTHING?

It really is a non issue if you read the regs and follow them. Either the gun is legal to send, or it is not.
Millions of guns probably flow into that state per year without issue.

This is a dead subject.

Cali people should be supported, as should all the CRAZY states. IT always starts small and then gets rolling. That's what they are trying now.

I know... "It can't happen here... we would never allow it"

[pace40]

There have been quite a few times in my life when my gut tells me one thing and what may be a better answer is something else. This is one of those times. I have gone with my gut in almost all instances and it has served me well. My gut tells me that for the small number of firearms I might ship to CA, even considering it is dumb. There have been a lot of statements and misstatements here. Increased risk of litigation is real simply because of the way the statues are written. (Funny how everybody hates lawyers until you actually need one.)

However, the Constitution of the United States is second only to the Bible on my list of important documents. CA laws infringe on an important part of that Constitution and while my gut, (and my attorney), is telling me to just walk away, it just doesn't seem right to do so.

So...I completed registration on the CFLC system this morning and removed the "no CA shipments" from my website. I will ship to CA, however, I will only ship verifyable C&R firearms and only to a CA 01 FFL. Since 99% of my business is C&R or antiques, this lack of current production guns, in my case, isn't really a big deal (and it made my attorney feel better)

See ya

[CDROBERTS]

Originally Posted by pace40

However, the Constitution of the United States is second only to the Bible on my list of important documents. CA laws infringe on an important part of that Constitution and while my gut, (and my attorney), is telling me to just walk away, it just doesn't seem right to do so.

So...I completed registration on the CFLC system this morning and removed the "no CA shipments" from my website. I will ship to CA, however, I will only ship verifyable C&R firearms and only to a CA 01 FFL. Since 99% of my business is C&R or antiques, this lack of current production guns, in my case, isn't really a big deal (and it made my attorney feel better)

See ya

One thing at a time, and one PERSON at a time we can beat a lot of this BS stuff.

Thanks for your contribution!!!