Rabid Liberals Want to Ban Handguns in CA

by (name withheld for privacy)

constitution_2At this point in our CA history there ought to be no question in the minds of all rational, informed, adults that our crazy liberals would love to ban handguns in California. But they can’t, at least not directly. So, they do the next best thing. They make it as tough as they can to own, buy or sell a gun. The pretext for all their extraordinary rules, regulations, fees, taxes and laws concerning the ownership, importation, manufacture and sales of handguns (actually all sorts of guns) has been touted as for the safety of the public. Well, you know what is said about those who would surrender freedom for safety, but is it really even about safety? If you think that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Let’s take a look at this picture and you tell me if something doesn’t stink! Start with the fees and forms. Check them out if you dare or if you have the time, because you are going to need a lot of time to read all the junk DOJ has imposed on you: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/forms.

Next, DOJ says all handguns manufactured or imported into this state must pass a number of safety tests before they are allowed to be sold in CA. And that’s fine… if this was necessary. However, the federal government already does that, so it’s a essentially a redundant effort that serves no good purpose, other than to form another costly hoop for manufacturers and dealers to jump through.

Manufacturers already must bear full responsibility for product safety. Name one company that would be so reckless as to do no safety testing before they put a product into full production and I’ll show you a bankrupt company. Gun manufacturers are in the crosshairs of every ambulance chasing lawyer in America, so they must be especially careful. And the federal government makes sure they are by their own product testing. But, in CA they take this to a whole new level. Here in CA we the Dept. of Justice and the Legislature and they do nothing to protect our 2nd amendment right and everything to undermine it! They deliberately make it tough to do (firearms) business in CA.

DOJ: “No handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice.” This extra layer of bureaucracy has deterred many sales here because it’s extremely costly. It’s not required by other states, so businesses simply write off CA as a lost cause. I can’t tell you how many times in the past few years I’ve tried to buy a handgun or rifle out of state only to be told, we won’t do business in CA, we simply don’t want the hassle or the risk. And while we are on the higher cost of this product because it is in CA you must realize it affects the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. That’s not very fair is it?

Overregulation has caused importers and manufacturers to say to heck with California, it just costs too much to do business here, it’s not worth the risk.

Rule Number 1: There should be one federal standard applied for the sale of firearms…period.

When a State like CA gets involved and they start mixing their personal politics into our gun laws suddenly we have this hidden agenda (a conspiracy) on a mass scale. When overregulation has a direct impact on restraint of trade we need to fix it.

[Restraint of trade] is absolutely prohibited by federal law (see below). But, even worse, these silly and certainly over-reaching gun laws tend to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens as they disarm the public and empower the criminals! That’s nuts. Logic says if the liberals were really concerned about “safety” they would not be putting you at risk by disarming you! Case in point is a frivolous ban on rifle magazine ejectors. That would be the little button you push to release the magazine (some call it a clip). California doesn’t like you to have that button, so they made it illegal. You can go to jail in CA if your [qualifying] rifle does not have an approved fixed magazine absent the normal button release. How stupid is that? And there are plenty more equally foolish laws regarding rifle [parts] that all serve to make the gun-owner a criminal and scare him/her out of ownership! How dangerous is that?

The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) – Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

Doesn’t it make sense that an unusual or exclusive gun law/s, not commonly found in other states that directly levies restrictive costs or unwarranted standards on the importers and/or manufacturers dealing in interstate commerce is… a restraint of trade violation?

Imagine this same litmus test applied in another venue, say the death penalty. The courts have repeatedly said the test of the death penalty rests on execution being cruel and/or unusual, keyword unusual. And if it is found to be either cruel or unusual then the death penalty would be banned. I submit the CA has imposed cruel and unusual laws upon gun owners and sellers! CA restrains their trade – that’s illegal and it ought to be investigated by the highest authorities.

The evidence of a massive state-wide conspiracy by notorious gun grabbing liberals like Kamela D. Harris-D our AG and liberal gun grabbers (D) in the State legislature can be found in many places from the Penal Code laws to the DOJ Certified Handgun list. Speaking of, DOJ provides a newly certified and recently de-certified list of firearms on their website. The new guns approved for sale in CA number two pages and the newly de-certified list is 46 pages long. What does that tell you? Folks you better wake up…this State is taking you on a ride where you really don’t want to go.

All the highly restrictive (oppressive) and unwarranted gun laws in CA amount to nothing short of an attack against the 2nd amendment. This should concern you whether or not you are a gun owner, because you can’t erode one just right without undermining all the others.

This rogue State should be under federal investigation for crimes against the Constitution. And if justice is to be served the feds ought to disclose the names of every legislator that has ever proposed an un-Constitutional law in order for us to hold them accountable. Because anyone who would deliberately undermine any part of the Constitution ought to be impeached and forever removed from office.

CA has far too many radical liberals in State government and they are a clear and present danger to our freedom and our economy. If our founder started a revolution over a tea tax, what do you think they would have done under CA tyranny? That tea tax is nothing compared to what CA is doing to it’s gun-owners and gun-sellers, not to mention our 2nd amendment. It’s time the legislature be told exactly how we feel and that we’re not going to take it anymore.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Rabid Liberals Want to Ban Handguns in CA

  1. Dewey says:

    If Gun regulations were handled correctly and the GOP’s NRA stopped inducing violence we would not be discussing guns.

    No one is going to abolish handguns… but I do not feel sorry that the way far left is bothering the far right….. I enjoy it!

    Stop the GOP from arming the crazies in other states and watch the conversation dwindle. More people killed in USA than Iraq in a year! Come on…

    You have the KKK and other survivalists running around praising killing and guns like a god… enjoy your conversation

    LOL A majority vote will not happen on that… But regulation? Keeping an Ar15 out of the hands of an autistic person… absolutely !

    GOP reeps what it sow….

    • Post Scripts says:

      Dewey, the NRA doesn’t induce violence and the KKK isn’t running around praising guns, where do you come up with this BS? Do you even know anyone in the KKK? I sure don’t and I sure don’t see what you see!

      This will come as news to you, but there are various forms of autism and many folks are highly functional (Asperger’s for example) and they should not be made criminals for owning a firearm because you hate people with autism. We should ban gravely mentally ill people like yourself and all felons – yes, of course. But, we should not take it out on good people with a minor disability…shame on you for saying that! EPIC FAIL Dewser.

  2. Pete says:

    Bought a handgun last year. No problem…took the safety course, filled out the forms (took 2 minutes) and paid in cash. Two weeks later had my gun. Then got my CCW permit from Butte County. Again, no problem. If you don’t want to take the time to fill out a couple of forms and take a course in handgun safety then I don’t want you to have the gun. You’d scare me.

    Two months ago bought a shotgun…same thing as the handgun, but no gun safety course requirement. I don’t see these rules as interfering with my right to own weapons. (I especially like the drop test)

    Also, would the sate of Jefferson ever go for federal regulation on the sale of guns? You stated, “There should be one federal standard applied for the sale of firearms…period.” Really? What happened to states rights? Heck, most posters to this blog won’t even consider approval of the “common core” standards for education.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Pete, that’s real nice, but you are ignoring the issues that were just raised. You are addressing only the parts of the law that you found acceptable.

      Let me recap…. the issue was not how Pete can buy a CA approved firearm, with a CA approved bullet capacity, and happily pay high DROS fees and high sales taxes, and how you don’t mind CA forcing you to buy a CA approved gun lock and/or keep it in a CA approved gun safe. I’m sure the People’s Republic of Kalifornia appreciates your cooperative attitude.

      The main issue I took exception too was imposing standards on interstate trade that are prejudiced only against gun manufacturers and laws that severely limit the public’s options to purchase the firearm of their choice. The issue is also about the nutty regulations that make a gun owner into an instant criminal if they have one more bullet in a clip or magazine than the State of CA allows! The issue is also CA mandating so many rules and regulations on gun ownership that it becomes prohibitively expensive for low to medium wage earners to comply, thus denying them their right to gun ownership or making them into criminals.

      You missed a lot Pete. I hope your shooting is more on target. By the way, (and I’m just curious) how long does it take you to load your pistol, unlock the trigger lock or open your gun safe in the event you are being attacked by an intruder? When seconds count the police are minutes away.

  3. Pete says:

    I realize I only addressed part of the topic. It was the part I had a problem with.

    True story; Had a guy try to break in a couple of weeks ago. Early morning, trying to break thorough my front door. From a dead sleep I had my pistol unlocked loaded in about 10 seconds. Left weapon where I could get it if needed and addressed the guy at the door. Called cops and they were here in less than one minute. They had the kid tackled and hooked up before I could get my robe on. Great job on their part. Turns out it was a drunk student that thought my house was his. Really glad I left the gun on my nightstand.

    What are your thoughts on “one federal standard” for the sales of firearms? What if you didn’t like the standards?

    • Post Scripts says:

      Pete, I’m glad you had your protection and that your situation went down without a hitch. However, such cases are not the norm. The way you reported it was the perfect situation with a perfect response by police and a perfect arrest. That rarely happens.

      Now about the federal standard, this is not new. We do this on so many things already. A federal standard allows uniform application of the law. We should not be more or less guilty or even not guilty depending on state lines. That’s not justice, that’s arbitrary and we need a uniform standard to insure fairness for the public. CA has scared off so many businesses, especially firearm sales with complicated laws and regulations that put them at great risk if they make a mistake and it costs them a great deal to try to comply. They would rather not mess with us.

  4. Post Scripts says:

    Pete, I missed a few points too. Guess we’re all just human eh? lol Anyway, my daughter read your comments and she pointed it out.

    You said, “If you don’t want to take the time to fill out a couple of forms and take a course in handgun safety then I don’t want you to have the gun.”

    She said and I agree, thank God and our inalienable rights that it’s not up to you.

    She said this knee jerk attitude to ban everything they don’t like is how liberals operate and why we have a problem in CA.

    You would deny me my right to own a firearm for very frivolous reasons (see above quote) without respect to 2nd amendment. That scare me even more.

    We both have our points, but mine encourage more freedom, not less. My views allow you to protect yourself and your family, not leave them vulnerable to some armed criminal, and that’s what you are saying if you think the system is just dandy in CA. I think most people would rather I have my way than yours. : )

    PS: Pete, I’m a retired police officer, a former range master in law enforcement and the military. I can fill out forms faster than most folks and I know more about safety than 98% of the population by virtue of my training and experience, but that is not the point. What I’m talking about is about much greater issues. (I did find it humorous you would deny somebody like me (Vet and retired cop) the right to buy a firearm if I had an issue with forms and/or taking a safety class, like I need a safety class? lol )

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #1 Epic Fail Boy: This insane and idiotic post is so contemptible, obscene, and wrong headed I am stunned into near silence.

    This could be your brain on drugs, you “reep” what you sow. Beware.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Re: “All the highly restrictive (oppressive) and unwarranted gun laws in CA amount to nothing short of an attack against the 2nd amendment. This should concern you whether or not you are a gun owner, because you can’t erode one just right without undermining all the others.”

    Precisely.

  7. Chris says:

    Dewey, I agree with many of your points, but my brother has a high-functioning form of autism and goes shooting frequently with my dad and myself. (Both are much better than me.) He’s also one of the most compassionate people I know, and he is very passionate about social justice issues.

    The notion that autism should be a barrier for gun ownership is pretty offensive to me. It is true that people with autism often have trouble reading social cues, but they are no more likely to be violent than the general population. In fact, they are more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator (the same is true for people with mental illnesses as well).

    While I do think we need more resources to help people struggling with autism and mental illness (note: autism is NOT a mental illness), I have noticed some troubling comments like yours from both the left and right when we discuss the relationship between this issue and guns. Our mental health system does need a lot of reform and in a way I am glad the gun violence issue has brought more attention to that, at the same time I fear that some may be unintentionally adding to the stigma already faced by people with mental illnesses and brain disorders.

  8. Chris says:

    Jack, why do you keep claiming that Pete is in favor of denying you, or anyone else, the right to own a firearm? He very clearly did not say that.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris that was a qualified claim taken from his own words… and thank you for sticking up for those with mild autism. We agree.

  9. RHT447 says:

    I was a fully licensed gun dealer (FFL) in California for 22 years. I gave it up in 2012 and went to work for another shop. The administrative overhead just wasn’t worth it anymore. Here is some historical perspective.

    The original handgun safety test bruha started when AG Bill Lockyear decided to go after what was referred to as the “Ring of Fire” gun makers in southern California (SB 15, Palanco, 1999). These were in-expensive guns made by Phoenix, Raven, and Lorcin, among others. The premise was that there were “unsafe” handguns being sold to the public that could fall apart, suffer catastrophic failure on firing, or fire when dropped. As noted above, if this were the case, they would never have gotten past the Feds. The political strategy was to use testing as a way to put these companies out of business. To my knowledge, none of the guns tested failed the drop test.

    In February of 2001, Phoenix was told to cease manufacture of their HP 22, a 3-inch barrel 22 caliber semi-auto, because a test gun malfunctioned more than six times during the 600 round firing test. Sorry, but a malfunction (failure to feed, failure to eject, etc.) does not by itself make a gun “unsafe”. That is a quality control issue.

    It is my understanding that gun manufacturers are required to submit three samples of each model they want tested for California, to the point of absurdity. For example, the Smith and Wesson model 686 revolver is offered in both 4″ and 6″ barrels. The mechanical lock work in each gun is identical, but California wants six guns to test, plus the testing fees, plus 600 rounds of ammo for each test. Get the picture? It is not up to the state which guns models are submitted for testing, it is up to the manufacturers how many models from their product line they are willing to pay for. And, there is an annual fee to keep each tested model on the certified list.

    To date, guns that are currently on the list are “grandfathered” and not subject to new “safety” laws. Current law requires (among other things) that each new semi-auto pistol added to the list must have a “loaded chamber indicator”. It’s a load alright. Each of us is born with two loaded chamber indicators in our head and five more on each hand. All this is covered by Jeff Cooper’s “Four Rules of Gun Safety.” Google it. Read it. Rinse. Repeat.

    And the best for last. LEO’s (Law Enforcement Officers) are exempt. They can buy whatever they like. On its face, I have no problem at all with this. However, I do have an issue with 1) equality under the law, and 2) If the premise of this whole program is that there are “unsafe” handguns manufactured, then what?—we don’t care if these “unsafe” handguns are sold to the good people whose very lives depend on them every day? Seriously? Or is this whole thing just a crock to extort money and put the screws to potential gun owners?

  10. Pete says:

    Jack,
    I never proposed to deny anybody the right to buy a or sell firearms, so don’t say I did. I’m just saying if one can’t pass a simple safety course or fill out a couple of forms then one probably shouldn’t have a weapon. If the law were changed today and it allowed for absolutely no restrictions on types of weapons one could own and no restrictions on who could own them would that be okay? Personally, I don’t want some of the scum downtown legally packing shotguns with 14″ barrels. Just like the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech is not inalienable, neither is the 2nd amendment. These legal rights may have boundaries placed upon them.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Pete, I think we can agree that there are limits to almost everything, even a right to own a firearm. The test is being reasonable, a reasonable limit should not bother anyone. We can’t have people running around with a nuclear bomb or land mines can we? Nor can we have bums packing sawed off shotguns…we must be reasonable about such things.

  11. Post Scripts says:

    Pete said, “If you don’t want to take the time to fill out a couple of forms and take a course in handgun safety then I don’t want you to have the gun. You’d scare me.”

    Pete, you keep raising issues that didn’t come from me, now you are accusing me of putting words in your mouth. Nope, never said anything of the sort, you misread it if that is what you think.

    Next point; there was nothing in my article about not wanting a firearms safety course or saying anything bad about a firearms course. Nothing there at all, that’s all okay by me and I think most folks too. Nobody puts on more safety courses than the NRA. We like that kind of thing. There was nothing in my article about filling out some reasonable paper work for a gun sale. I’m okay with this. Again, I only had issues as expressed in the article. I would rather we stayed on the issues that concern us all re 2nd amendment rights. There’s plenty to be concerned about too, read RHT comments. If there is an expert on this subject it is RHT, you would do well to read every word he has to say on this!

    Now when it comes to interstate commerce we need just one set of federal rules. We don’t need every state going off on their own with reckless and unconstitutional laws. We can’t have a whole bunch of petty, do nothing laws that would make it impossible for a manufacturer to follow! That’s wrong. And since we already have federal standards why is CA trying to go above and beyond with a ton of wacky rules and laws other states flatly refuse to use? It’s because of the liberal gun grabbers. That makes some gun owners guilty of a crime here, but not in other states…how dumb is that?

    Calif. needs a strong dose of common sense.

    -Jack

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #13 Post Scripts : I concur Jack. Thanks for extending your thought.

    Re Dewey and Chris: STFU you tedious nitwits. Go create your own blogs to piss in.

  13. Pie Guevara says:

    Jack, I visited http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ today.

    Ruger, Smith and Wesson (my favorite manufacturers), and many others have all but completely given up selling their lines of semi-automatic pistols due the the difficult and unreasonable California regulations including micro-stamping.

    This is has been the California Democrat’s plan, to usurp the 2nd amendment by effectively regulating it out of existence. California is well on its way to an effective gun ban without actually banning guns, increment by increment, and the redundant safety and drop tests were one of most effective initial steps the ineffective unproven micro-stamp law another.

    Putting my money where my mouth is I now have lifetime memberships in the National Rifle Association (just paid off), Gun Owners of America, and am donating member (no dues required to join) of Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights.

    I hope some of this pays off and protects us from the rabid anti-gun lunatics who think the NRA and other 2nd amendment rights organizations “induce” (teach and spread) violence. Sheesh, I do get tired of that obscene garbage spewed by ignorant morons. Their intent is pretty clear. What sort of person says a ridiculous, hateful thing like the NRA inducing violence and his pod person buddy agreeing to it.

    This is the sort of slime mold mentality we are up against.

  14. Pete says:

    Jack,

    You’re right. I did say you, but I didn’t mean “you.” Does that make sense? I used the wrong generic pronoun. I should have used the word “one.”

    Let me try to be clear; You, Jack, don’t need to jump through the hoops that we civilians should. You were in LE and have a better understanding of firearms safety than most of us. I should have chosen a different word and, in the future, I’ll try to be more careful.

    That said, I think we agree on most points. The only problem I have is that most people don’t see the 2nd amendment as a work in progress. Many people hear the rhetoric about gun control on TV and radio then take the rhetoric as fact. Some gal in Texas went loony about the President coming to take her guns and sent him ricin. She’s doing 18 years because of her warped sense of reality.

    God I’m glad it’s Friday…Have a great weekend everyone.

  15. Pie Guevara says:

    Re ” Here in CA we the Dept. of Justice and the Legislature and they do nothing to protect our 2nd amendment right and everything to undermine it! They deliberately make it tough to do (firearms) business in CA.”

    It is good Pete did not try to purchase a California edition M&P .40 caliber compact. This same pistol was on the approved list last year but has been effectively banned by regulation this year because Smith & Wesson has thrown in the towel and will not renew. They see no reason to go through the extra and costly unnecessary expense of doing business here. Ban by regulation is working.

    There are some full size M&P pistols on the list, but when their approval period expires they will probably disappear.

    The California approved handgun list is fast dwindling.

  16. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #11 RHT447 : Thanks for taking the time!

  17. Dewey Smith says:

    Dewey, you are such a dope, the NRA doesn’t induce violence and the KKK isn’t running around praising guns, where do you come up with this BS?

    Well in california Tina…. if some people would turn off Fox news infact the tv set altogether… and get off party blogs …. they might see another view than Chico

    Really ya wanna call me a dope? Well yea then …. LOL

    Seriously? Guess I better git thant ther dum gum
    It is not a mystery why some in chico do not feel like the rest of CA cares about them… LOL I am on the floor laughing

  18. Dewey Smith says:

    PS How do I become a card carrying rabid liberal? cause I wanna see me some blueberry PIE!

  19. Tina says:

    Jack it’s interesting that you should be talking about guns today given what I read this morning.

    Eric Holder has been abusing the law with respect to gun manufacturers and retailers, among others. He’s using a familiar tactic too…pressuring banks to close accounts and refuse to lend to certain types of businesses, including gun retailers and manufacturers. Other legal businesses targeted, some distasteful but still legal, include the porn industry, payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia, and online gambling sites.

    The Hill:

    From small businesses on Main Street to the halls of Congress and the state legislatures, concern is mounting over Operation Choke Point, a coordinated effort among the Department of Justice (DOJ) and bank regulators to cut off banking services for a variety of legal, state-regulated businesses. This week alone, there are three congressional hearings on Operation Choke Point, hearings which will hopefully bring an end this misguided operation.

    Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member. Operating without legal authority and guided by a political agenda, unelected officials at the DOJ are discouraging banks from providing basic banking services — deposit accounts, payments processing services, and payroll accounts – to lawful businesses simply because they don’t like them. Bankers are being cowed into submission by an oppressive regulatory regime.

    According to the Six Month Status Report issued on Operation Choke Point by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, the DOJ launched Operation Choke Point in 2013, working in concert with a wide range of agencies including the FTC, FDIC, OCC, CFPB, and FBI. The stated goal of Operation Choke Point was to “sensitize” the banking industry to the risk of doing business with legal but “undesirable” businesses through the issuance of non-public FIRREA subpoenas ( as opposed to enforcement actions where the authority could be challenged).

    Regulators and the DOJ highlight some two-dozen businesses that they consider “high risk” or “undesirable”, including ammunition dealers, producers of adult films, check cashers, short-term unsecured loans (commonly called “payday loans”), telemarketers, firearms/fireworks vendors, raffles, pharmaceutical firms, life-time guarantees, surveillance equipment firms, and home-based charities. I have spent my entire professional career in banking and bank regulation, and I do not discern any meaningful increase in risk in providing basic banking services such as deposit accounts, payroll processing, or check clearing services to any of these businesses compared to a host of other legitimate businesses.

    Operation Choke Point is fundamentally unfair to the banks and to the legal businesses that find their banking services cut off. Once banking services are cut off to these state-licensed and regulated businesses, there is no chance for the business to appeal the decision. The company is simply in a business that, while legal, has been determined “undesirable” and therefore “high risk” by the federal bureaucracy. This Orwellian result is frightening. …
    …Fortunately, a solution is on the table. The House Committee on Financial Services is holding a subcommittee hearing on Operation Choke Point and H.R. 4986, the End Operation Choke Point Act of 2014. This bipartisan proposal includes several provisions that would stop the DOJ from continuing to skirt the law. The bill creates a safe-harbor for banks that provide services for business that operate legally and ensures small businesses operating lawfully have access to the payments system.

    The bill is an extremely important step in reining in government agencies that are greatly overstepping their authority and breaching the Constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government, and between the states and federal government.

    I’m glad the house is taking action but with over 200 jobs related bills passed in the House and dead on arrival in Harry Reids Senate I’m not sure it will ever reach the Presidents desk…or that he’d sign it if it did.

    People who think the regulations now being put in place are simply for safety of the public or to serve some benign public interest are naive indeed. They don’t realize thepeople now in power are not just liberal but radical subversives. Like all tyranical types they will not stop until they have control of all business and commerce.

    A nation disarmed is a nation that cannot defend itself from those who prefer centralized power and control. Whether through mass government purchases of ammo stock, the enactment of regulations aimed at disarming law abiding citizens, harrassment and demonization of gun owners and gun owner organizatins like the NRA, impossible to meet regulations on retailers and manuactuers, or abuses of legal authority, as in Operation Choke Point, these radical elements are infringing on the rights of ordinary Americans without cause.

    RABID LIBERALS is exactly right. The sooner we are rid of this bunch the better! That goes for the rabid liberals in California too.

  20. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #24 Dewey Smith :

    Dear Epic Fail Boy,

    You really do not have to prove any further that you are a driveling idiot. We get it.

  21. Pie Guevara says:

    OFF TOPIC: Rabid Liberals Elsewhere

    The death of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité —

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/179381/la-roquette-haverim

  22. RHT447 says:

    Jack, thanks for the kind words.

    #22 Pie. My pleasure. While I no longer arm the good people with guns, I can still arm them with info.

    So while I’m on a roll, here is some more info about another layer most people don’t know about unless they are in the business. It’s a bit technical, so bear with me. I need to set it up with a brief comparison.

    In free America (and in California until 2008) shipping firearms between licensed dealers (FFL’s) wholesalers, and/or manufacturers went like this: The receiving FFL sends (mail or digital) a current copy of their federal license to the sender. The sender keeps this copy on file for any future transactions. (Anyone can go to the BATF website and punch in an FFL license number to see if it is legit.) The sender then sends the firearms(s) to the address on the license. That’s it. Done.

    In California, FFL’s are required to keep current copies of all licenses, Federal, State, County, and/or city on file with CAL DOJ. In 2008, California instituted the California Firearms Licensee Check System (CFLC). It applies to all FFL’s, (and/or manufacturers, etc.) inside California or not, across the street or across the country. It works like this:

    To ship a firearm to any licensed FFL inside California, the shipper has to go to the CAL DOJ Bureau of Firearms website, click on the CFLC link, and create an account with password and ID login. Next, they have to contact the receiving FFL and get their unique California ID number. These are both one- time chores. Then for every subsequent firearms shipment, they have to log onto CFLC, pull up the receiving FFL, and enter their ID number. If the receiving FFL’s info is all current, the system will generate a Firearms Shipment Approval letter containing the verification approval number. This number must be provided to the receiving FFL. The simplest way is to print a copy of the letter and include it with the shipment.

    Here is a cut and paste from the CFLC page:

    “California Penal Code Section 27555 prohibits all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), other than Type 03 or 06 FFLs, from shipping firearms to an FFL in California unless, prior to delivery, the FFL intending to deliver, sell or transfer the firearms obtains a verification approval number from the California Department of Justice (CADOJ) Bureau of Firearms. This includes transfers that occur at gun shows. ”

    To my knowledge and experience, I don’t see how this is enforceable outside California.

    “The verification approval number, which the Bureau of Firearms provides in a Firearms Shipment Approval letter, confirms that the intended recipient of the firearm shipment is properly licensed and listed in the state’s database of persons/entities authorized to receive firearm shipments. If the intended CA FFL recipient is not listed in the state’s database, the transaction will result in a Do Not Ship letter, and it is a crime for the intended recipient to receive the firearms (Penal Code Section 28465). ”

    Note the last sentence in the above paragraph. When the CFLC first started, I had this happen. Firms I was doing business with had my FFL, but had no clue about the new system (why would they?). Nothing bad came of it as I managed to get everyone up to speed and all the bases covered. However, I did call CAL DOJ and ask them to define “receive” in the above paragraph. Is it–

    When the Brown Truck of Happiness pulls up?
    When I sign for it?
    When I open the box?
    When log it in?

    The response I got was “That’s a good question. I’ll bring it up at our next meeting.”

    Yeah, you do that. To be fair, I should qualify this. DOJ doesn’t write the law. They are stuck trying to enforce it. All the DOJ people I have dealt with have been courteous and professional.

    Anyway, the next time are perusing one of the online gun auction sites and encounter listings with notices that empathically say they will not do business with California, you will understand why.

    For anyone interested, here is a direct link the CFLC. I suggest starting with the FAQ’s.

    http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/cflcoverview

    • Post Scripts says:

      RHT, another home run. This is invaluable information and I hope to use it as best I can by sending it on to our state representatives.

  23. RHT447 says:

    Here’s another cute wrinkle:

    As Pie has mentioned, guns are dropping off the certified list right and left, primarily Smith & Wesson and Ruger. Let’s run with his example of the S&W M&P .40 Compact that is no longer on the list.

    Let’s say somebody owns one and has to send back to S&W under warranty. S&W determines that the frame has to be replaced, thus generating a new serial number.
    The “new” gun must go through the DROS process but can’t because it is no longer on the list. There is no provision in the law for this.

  24. Tina says:

    Dewey at #23 It was Jack who called you a dope, however, I concur, so on second thought…never mind!

  25. RHT447 says:

    Re: #31 Post Scripts

    Good on ya, lad. Go get ’em and good luck. Sadly, with rare exception, the current crop of “representatives” neither know nor care. Those that do care are too few to make a difference.

    This bill in hopper now:

    http://www.crpa.org/ab-1014/

  26. Post Scripts says:

    RHT you’ve given us darn good evidence and really good logic that we can use to make a difference. Of course if somebody here disagrees with what you said, they can look up your facts and see how you were right and they were wrong! lol

    This is how our blog works bests…well, actually its how the nation works best.

    We get into trouble when we stop having intelligent dialog and fall back on partisan rhetoric. Dewey is the quintessential partisan who casts partisan stones without the back up of any evidence or facts 90% of the time. You RHT rise above this tripe. As Bruce Sessions often said, you are shinning a light on truth and we couldn’t ask for more than that! Thank you X a million!!!!

  27. Post Scripts says:

    Dewey, I reluctantly have to admit that I said you were a dope. This was for making such dumb accusations that were completely absurd and groundless. That’s still no excuse.

    I had an emotional reaction because I felt you played right into the hands of the very people who hate us and think like Nazis. Look at Hamas and their past goes right back to WWII when they supported Hitler and genocide. Now they are trying to present a different face, but they are the same old genocidal maniacs they always were and you dare to cozy up to them and give them comfort?

    Even so I regret having used that word and I removed it over a day ago after I thought about it. But, I said it so I own it. I won’t go there again, but I will take anyone to task who supports neo Nazis aka Muslim radicals.

  28. Pie Guevara says:

    Dewey IS a dope. An evil dope.

    Here is an example of how 2nd amendment rights are being eroded by tyrannical state legislation and are suppressing and violating human dignity, rights, and freedom.

    Despite the fact that Shaneen Allen possesses a License to Carry Firearms issued by the City of Philadelphia…

    Despite the fact that Allen has been trained in firearm safety and passed an NRA handgun safety course…

    Despite the fact that Allen voluntarily presented her carry license to the police in conjunction with a routine traffic stop, as per her training…

    New Jersey is doing its best to turn Shaneen Allen into a convicted felon facing a State Prison term of a minimum-mandatory 3-5 years with no chance of parole.

    What heinous offense did Shaneen Allen — a hard-working single mother of two, with no prior criminal record — do to deserve such a fate? Last October, she travelled with her Pennsylvania licensed handgun loaded with lawfully purchased, low penetration self defense ammunition, into New Jersey.

    Shaneen Allen Legal Defense Fund
    http://gogetfunding.com/project/shaneen-allen-legal-defense-fund

    The Ordeal of Shaneen Allen
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383657/ordeal-shaneen-allen-editors
    Shaneen Allen, race and gun control
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/

    Screw the evil dopes like Dewey and the state of New Jersey.

Comments are closed.