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

[bigl1911]

One thing I know for sure is that I will not be persuaded by bullying, personal attacks, or name calling. I do not think that is what bigl1911 should support either. (

I completely agree and do not suggest anyone make negative comments of a personal nature Glowe. This being said, I understand that people are very emotional and easily worked up over this subject. Honestly, I didn't think my first post would energize so many people... At the end of day I see the more aggressive comments as highly energized and have not taken offense. I hope no one has either and if there have been moments please let it roll over the shoulder and pass on... Point being the subject has really turned into an interesting series of discussions and opinions from various sources.

Speaking as a resident of California I take accountability for where we are in this case with the gun laws. As mentioned, one way I fight the powers is by educating myself. Much of it comes from this forum. The other is I continue learning and buy more guns. If the governmental agency, more specifically Doj Cali want to make it hard ok.. I work harder and buy more when I can. This being said, I have amassed a decent modest collection for a newbie.. I also learn the law and support those that will help and educate others when opportunity knocks. A good group in need of support example and is actively working for the gun owner is Calguns. Glowe, I don't suggest you strap on a holster and roll into Cali on a stagecoach (meant with humor no offense intended). However, I suggest even if it is your right not to do so when you sell a firearm and the buyer is in California support us by exporting the firearm. Bringing another gun in the State support the cause...

 

[bigl1911]

As a CALI resident an 03 FFL holder, a licensed mental health professional AND a gun enthusiast I have greatly enjoyed the thread that my komrad bigl started. He's a good dude and way smarter than I am. What I can say is this - TWO of the dozens of handguns I own are actually on the CA handgun roster. CA does make you jump through WAAAAYYY too many hoops and, if you're smart enough and take the time, there are LEGAL ways around most of the nonsense. You see, no handgun is "illegal" in CA - many just can't be imported for sale in their regular configuration. Many dealers and manufacturers will still overlook this and send a handgun to CALI knowing it must be rendered to a "single shot" configuration and then DROS'd. We appreciate this latitude very much. It is the SOLE responsibility of the receiving FFL not the sender to ensure compliance since it is a BS "state law". If it's not kosher, it gets sent back and then you have my money and your gun. I always tell people if that actually happens, you keep both.

That being said, the idea that it's "not my problem" or "not in my backyard" is really scary to me. Division is the best possible outcome for those that are outnumbered and need a lack of solidarity to implement their tyranny. I am an American gun-owner first and foremost. I will never give up on voting and fighting to peacefully maintain and enjoy my rights in this country on the local, state, and federal level. I really believe this issue needs to be seen for the cancer that it is. Once a foothold is had, you think other states aren't going to follow suit? Just ask NY and MA. I for one am glad Ruger and Smith left CA. I hope every big manufacturer does and soon! That way these laws will be seen for exactly what they are, illegal restrictions.

I wish you all health, safe shooting, and freedom. I sure hope you wish it back regardless of where I choose to hang my hat in this great nation.

Very well said!! and thanks for the complement UD...

 

[bigl1911]

I did not see a Ruger Single Six on the roster but it mentions on the site certain single action revolvers may be exempt. Is this legal to ship to people in California?

James

James:

The 'single shot exemption' or 'SSE' is an exception to California's Roster of Handguns. Guns in the SSE configuration may be sold in California, regardless of whether they are on the Roster. They must actually be safely functional, and must be capable of firing only one shot before reloading.

12133. (a) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a
single-action revolver that has at least a 5-cartridge capacity
with a barrel length of not less than three inches, and meets
any of the following specifications:

 

[bigl1911]

Any single action revolver is legal aka "safety approved"

Here is the interesting point as an augment... Convert the gun single shot.. Buyer dros and picks up gun (takes possession legally).. Gun can at this point convert back to original condition LEGALLY multi-shot as a revolver or as a pistol as long as pistol uses legal 10 round mags....

 

[Gunhacker]

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.

Pace40... your actions are greatly appreciated, especially by those of us that are exempt from the CFLC requirements.

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.

One of those exemptions is being able to have C&R long guns shipped directly to me.

C&R FFL's are not considered dealers (and the BATF admonishes that on their webpage detailing what an 03 FFL is), and are not required (or even allowed... I discovered that when I tried to be listed before I learned of the C&R exemption) to be listed in the Centralized List of Firearm Dealers (CLFD), that is checked by the California Firearms Licensee Check (CFLC) Program.

It is maddening to be systematically denied access to what is completely legal.

Out of state FFL's that have a blanket "no CA sales" have got to stop "throwing the baby out with the bath water", as it only encourages CA politicians. I really suspect the reason why CA guns laws are crafted the way is the politicians have realized that majority of out of state FFL's will just do as they have done... not take the time to learn the law and refuse to do any business in CA... which basically does the CA politicians dirty work by placing in effect, a ban on firearms for CA.

And the success of CA will spread like a virus to other states... NY and CO are prime examples, you can see the CA DNA in their laws.

Many out of state FFL's may feel like it's not their responsibility to change what is going on in CA... but if they aren't careful, they may suddenly find themselves subject to a law in their own state that owed it's origins (or parts of it) to CA.

I'm sure Magpul never thought they would need to pull up stakes and move from Colorado.

 

[Mike Grasso]

I've been a licensed 07 Dealer / Manufacturer in California for just under 30 years.

I hold every license California has thrown at us from Assault Weapons to High Cap Magazines. I pay for them all every year.
The State comes in and inspect's from top to bottom every year.

I mostly do this for my fellow LEO's, few dealers in California can make compliant rifles out of AW's and reverse.

I deal with Gunbroker weekly.

And weekly I get the "I'm not selling to California", that's normally followed by "why?", then a discussion on the CFLC system. Once I explain it, they sign up, takes 5 minutes.

When I buy a weapon, I explain to them the List doesn't matter to them, it matters to me. You can send whatever you want, I have to be able to sell it. LEO's are exempt from the list as long as it's for duty / off duty. So I can receive anything, from a dealer or a private party. I'ts my responsibility to make sure I can sell it.

I also explain that the entire CFLC System wasn't something that the State thought up.

It was a group of Dealers!
It was a way for them to curtail everyday Citizens from buying, from GunBroker / Auctions or even big out of state dealers, themselves and then only paying a "transfer fee" at their LGS.

The Dealers thought by adding this step, it would make the citizens go back to LGS's to purchase and they would profit by the markup.

I explain that every time because most dealers, hell most Californians don't know that.

I applaud the Dealers who take the time and if you're a dealer who doesn't, it's your choice, but remember owning a business goes hand in hand with selling a product and making a profit.

Mike

 

[Gunhacker]

I also explain that the entire CFLC System wasn't something that the State thought up.

It was a group of Dealers!
It was a way for them to curtail everyday Citizens from buying, from GunBroker / Auctions or even big out of state dealers, themselves and then only paying a "transfer fee" at their LGS.

The Dealers thought by adding this step, it would make the citizens go back to LGS's to purchase and they would profit by the markup.

I explain that every time because most dealers, hell most Californians don't know that.


Mike

Wow... that's quite the revelation. My visceral reaction is, which dealers put that dagger in our backs? I'm stunned.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[handejector]

Participation in requirements that restrict, regulate, or provide for registration of firearm shipments provides adhoc acceptance. I choose not to accept it. I choose to accept the letter of 2A. and the constitution of the state I reside and do business in,

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.
____________________________________________

Srv,

For handguns there are only three categories that are legal for import:

You forgot some Target pistols-
Roster of Exempted Olympic Competition Pistols - Bureau of Firearms

 

[Fishslayer]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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