Senator Feinstein to introduce a new AWB

[cordex]

Not one more step back.  I demand we go forward.  "Universal background checks" is not a step in the correct direction.

Agreed.

[Harold Tuttle]

how about felons get a special edition Drivers License with a scarlet F emblazoned across it?

[ArfinGreebly]

how about felons get a special edition Drivers License with a scarlet F emblazoned across it?

Thus creating yet another black market in phake IDs.



How about we quit punishing people after we let them out?

If you're out, you're a free man.

If you can't be trusted with firearms, why are you out?

This pretext of "corrections" and "rehabilitation" within the prison system, and "paying your debt to society" crap needs to be completely tossed.

Make up your [cultural] mind already.  If he's a bad man, a violent man, a man beyond redemption, why the hell would you ever let him out?  If, on the other hand, correction and rehab can actually work, then make it effing work and let a free man be a free man.

Repeat offenders?  Pretended redemption?  Commits another violent crime?  Warehouse the miscreant, either in a prison or a cemetery.

I don't want people running around with a "scarlet letter," and I really, really don't want a system [such as we have now] where I continually have to prove I'm not one of the bad guys every time I want to exercise a right.  I mean, REALLY?

When you're done punishing or rehabilitating a man, then BE DONE already!  Seriously.  It is cruel and unusual to tell a man, "you're free now . . . but we own you forever, and you may not do this list of things."

Gah!

[ArfinGreebly]

And, while we're at it, can we PLEASE abolish the FFL?

In 1965 I could mail order a rifle or pistol from Sears.  I could buy either one at the local hardware store, or at the Raley's supermarket out at the edge of town.  The gas stations sold ammo and cheap .22 rifles.  The Army surplus store had barrels of old military rifles.  Pawn shops?  Sure, drop in, pick up that old 1911 in the window.

Anyone could have a gun and most families did.

Prohibited person?  What's that?

And school shootings?  Anyone?  Bueller?

I want my freedoms back.  Stop saving me from your bogeymen.

[Strings]

^THIS. ALL of this!^

[Ben]

Speaking of registration=confiscation, if this article is an indication, confiscation will be a rather expensive endeavor. I have to wonder how many of these people got on the "can't own a gun" felony list while going through a nasty divorce.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/california-faces-backlog-40000-weapons-in-hands-felons-mentally-ill/?test=latestnews

[SADShooter]

Speaking of registration=confiscation, if this article is an indication, confiscation will be a rather expensive endeavor. I have to wonder how many of these people got on the "can't own a gun" felony list while going through a nasty divorce.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/california-faces-backlog-40000-weapons-in-hands-felons-mentally-ill/?test=latestnews

I read this, and missed how long this registry has been in effect. Does in indicate, or does anyone know?

It smacks of: "Ooh, we put this shiny new law on the books, but didn't bother with enforcement until the issue got public scrutiny." Not a unique situation, surely, but suggests the stereotypical knee-jerk reaction.

[Ben]

I read this, and missed how long this registry has been in effect. Does in indicate, or does anyone know?

It smacks of: "Ooh, we put this shiny new law on the books, but didn't bother with enforcement until the issue got public scrutiny." Not a unique situation, surely, but suggests the stereotypical knee-jerk reaction.

It's a bit murky with all our laws, plus the article just says "guns". "Assault weapons" confiscations began with the Roberti-Roosi SB23 debacle around 1999. We've had to register handguns at least that long (can't remember when exactly that started, but I think around 1990). A few years later everyone bringing a handgun into CA had to register it. Long guns are not due for mandatory registration until 2014, due to a crappy bill that passed last year. Also the confiscation thing might have been enacted some years after handgun registration. I've actually not heard of it till now, but if it was something recent, there should have been a big stink about it on CalGuns, and I haven't seen anything there.

[ArfinGreebly]

Was there not an older series of events involving registration "just so we know" in CA, which later led to "okay, turn them in?"

This would have been quite a while back, and involved such things as WWII bring-backs.

Or am I distorting something else?

[TommyGunn]

Speaking of registration=confiscation, if this article is an indication, confiscation will be a rather expensive endeavor. ..........

One of the arguments I hear about why the govt. will never confiscate is it will be too expensive.
Obamacare is too expensive and THAT DIDN'T STOP THE GOV FROM STUFFING THAT DOWN OUR THROATS.

[ArfinGreebly]

One of the arguments I hear about why the govt. will never confiscate is it will be too expensive.

Obamacare is too expensive and THAT DIDN'T STOP THE GOV FROM STUFFING THAT DOWN OUR THROATS.

While that is correct, I would note that they didn't have to go door-to-door to stuff that down our throats.

When it becomes door-to-door, then perhaps the expense can be billed to the Gulag Archipelago.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

[Ben]

Was there not an older series of events involving registration "just so we know" in CA, which later led to "okay, turn them in?"

I think you're thinking of SB23 fallout, mentioned above. A small percentage of Californians obeyed the law and registered their "assault weapons", then a different AG sent out confiscation letters. I believe the hullabaloo started over an SKS that somebody had registered. The firearm type was "reclassified" at a later date, opening it to confiscation.

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html

[ArfinGreebly]

I think you're thinking of SB23 fallout, mentioned above. A small percentage of Californians obeyed the law and registered their "assault weapons", then a different AG sent out confiscation letters. I believe the hullabaloo started over an SKS that somebody had registered. The firearm type was "reclassified" at a later date, opening it to confiscation.

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html

No, I'm thinking of a pre-nineties (and pre-eighties, I believe) event.

Gawd.  I do wish the memory fragment had more data in it.

I just remember standing in a dining room several years ago, before we left Vegas (meaning "before 2000") and hearing this discussion.  The tenor of the discussion was that you couldn't trust the government with registration, because look what happened way back then.

I just don't remember when "way back then" was.

[Cliffh]

Besides what else has been said about "universal" background checks, they'll also cause more of a logistical hassle when buying or selling - both parties will have to meet up at a prearranged date/time/place to have the check & paperwork completed.  "Can you get next Thursday off to meet at the LGS"?  "Nope, can we make it Weds instead"? 

And which FFL is going to do the check & paperwork for free?

Quote from: Jamisjockey on Today at 10:02:38 AM
Not one more step back.  I demand we go forward.  "Universal background checks" is not a step in the correct direction.

Hell yeah.

[Ben]

And which FFL is going to do the check & paperwork for free?

None, and I can't blame them for not doing it for free. Though some here in CA make a racket out of it. The local rate is around $90 now for a private to private transfer. Up where my folks are, some FFLs still do it in the $50 range. I'm not sure it's worth more than $10-15.

Actually I guess I could argue that it's worth zero dollars because all the paperwork shouldn't be a requirement. A quick NICS call should be the end of it.

[Cliffh]

I wouldn't blame them for charging a fee; man's in business, not running a charity.

But $90 to do a transfer???  The last private to private sale I went through an FFL for in CA cost ~$10.  That was a few decades ago though.  Even with inflation it shouldn't cost more than ~$20.

[Perd Hapley]

If our betters in Washington really wanted to keep guns out of the wrong hands, you'd think they would implement some way that a potential buyer could allow a potential (private) seller to run a background check on them. On the honor system, of course, because criminals will just break the law anyway.

[Blakenzy]

I wouldn't blame them for charging a fee; man's in business, not running a charity.

But $90 to do a transfer???  The last private to private sale I went through an FFL for in CA cost ~$10.  That was a few decades ago though.  Even with inflation it shouldn't cost more than ~$20.

Once you hold control of an essential commodity (in this case artificially created by law) you can begin with the price gouging, specially if there is little to no competition. Just think of those areas that have one FFL. He is going to make a killing.

[Cliffh]

Haven't there been charges brought against people, such as gas station owners, for price gouging?

[AJ Dual]

Once you hold control of an essential commodity (in this case artificially created by law) you can begin with the price gouging, specially if there is little to no competition. Just think of those areas that have one FFL. He is going to make a killing.

I'd agree that's part of it.

However, losing your entire livelihood or business over a single spelling mistake or an abbreviation in the 4473 and other paperwork (I'm sure there's tons extra for a state like CA) for that FFL transfer, I think the risks involved could also reflect that in the price.

The kitchen table FFL guy,  if he loses his FFL over a bad 4473 or some other picayune issue, more often than not, it's not his main job. And aside from not having any overhead in terms of retail space, insurance, or employees, his lower risks are reflected in his transfer prices as well.

[Ben]

Because I know the state (CA) gets a good portion of the fees (another reason for them to do it, to get some revenue) I just went online to see what the state portion of the fees are here. As shown in the quoted section below, my reading of it is that dealers are not supposed to charge more than $45 total for the transfer, but they can add "dealer fees" if they spell them out. The below link to a CalGuns thread that lists dealers and fees though (from 2007) has a very wide range, including someone charging $5. Not sure how that works if the state is supposed to get $25 off the top.

Very confusing, and just another reason to fight the "gun show loophole".

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=63050

How much is the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) fee?

    The State's DROS fee is $19.00 which covers the costs of the background checks and transfer registry. There is also a required $1.00 Firearms Safety Testing fee and a $5.00 Safety and Enforcement fee. If the transaction being processed is a dealer sale, consignment return, or return from pawn, the dealer may impose other charges as long as this amount is clearly shown as a "dealer fee" and not misrepresented as a state fee. In the event of a private party transfer, the firearms dealer may additionally charge a fee of $10 per firearm transferred.

    When settling on the purchase price of a firearm and before completing the transaction, you may want to ask the dealer to disclose and identify any and all fees he/she is charging to complete the transaction.

    (PC Sections 12076, 12082, and 12806)

Back To Top
I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

    Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

    Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:
        For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
        For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.

    (PC section 12072(d))

[Cliffh]

However, losing your entire livelihood or business over a single spelling mistake or an abbreviation in the 4473 and other paperwork (I'm sure there's tons extra for a state like CA) for that FFL transfer, I think the risks involved could also reflect that in the price.

It doesn't seem to me that the additional $55 in charges would make up for loosing ones' business.

On the other hand, the possibility of loosing ones' business might make one want to increase their fees to the point where folks wouldn't want to pay the (excessive) amount and thus not bring their firearms in for "processing".

What happens then?  No sale?  Or off-the-record sale?

[seeker_two]

No sale?  Or off-the-record sale?

Yes......