![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)
![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
That's just so much Bull S---. Our dealers fought the CA DOJ Regs concerning this and our local dealers in NORCAL are basically irritated that it was put in place.Rimfire McNutjob wrote:I thought regulating interstate commerce was the purview of the Feds. Anyway, I believe it was the California dealers that pushed the regulations that are causing sellers outside of California to balk. Apparently, they wanted to restrict the size of their market's supply ... and it seems they are getting their wish. It looks like many sellers are not willing to "register" to be able to ship into the state ... though I'm not sure of the terminology or particulars, you can certainly see the effects up on GunBroker.
I based my statement on something I found about the NRA being told it was an "industry bill" which was supposed to be code for "do not oppose". I've not been exposed to the system other that what I've read about it and it seems to me to not be a significant burden ... but you know how some people are and apparently some people are taking a stand against it from outside of the state. It's a shame, because from what I've seen on GunBroker it can really limit what's available to California buyers. There are just a pile of listings that state "no sales to California" on items that I search.Modoc ED wrote: EDIT:
"Rimfire" - Not meaning to come down on you hard or negatively but I get so danged tired of non-CA folks putting out background on CA regs that just aren't so and danged tired of non-CA folks knocking CA about our firearm laws/regs (which you didn't do). We may have waiting periods, etc. here in CA but we actually have more firearm freedom than many of the other states. Anyway, wasn't trying to insult you -- I like 99.9% of your posts and have learned much from you.
This is a case of a CA dealer sending a firearm OUT of CA and ripping you off on the shipping charges. You deal had nothing to do with importing firearms INTO CA.meanc wrote:BTW,
I was out there a year ago visiting in Orange County, went to a couple of gun shops to browse around. Saw a Winchester and a Marlin I wanted.
Decided I'd get both and the owner said he'd ship both to my FFL.
We started the paperwork and he did his calculations.
The total came out to $200 more than we discussed. I asked him what in the He** happened.
$100 SHIPPING.... EACH!!!!!
I kindly told him he could keep them.
So, if some of you think all your local gun shop owners are all in a tissy over this, think again.
They were major proponents of the bill. No, they were not!!
I answered my own question.Tycer wrote:Can an individual send a firearm to an FFL in CA from outside CA?
This is a case of a CA dealer sending a firearm OUT of CA and ripping you off on the shipping charges. Your deal had nothing to do with importing firearms INTO CA.
ABSOLUTELY. You can also send firearms, excepting handguns, to individuals that have C&R licenses. There are NO CA laws that prevent individuals from sending guns to FFL holders in CA. If anyone tells you this, they have no knowledge of CA laws.Tycer wrote:Can an individual send a firearm to an FFL in CA from outside CA?
Yes.Rimfire McNutjob wrote:So Tycer, private persons may ship into CA FFLs without registering? But FFLs and C&Rs need to register?
A non-FFL/non-CR holder (meaning private individual) from outside of CA can ship a firearm to a FFL/CR licensed individual in CA.northwoods wrote:Well, I stay confused. If a Calif. FFL dealer will accept from a non FFL holder in another state you may ship to Calif. Please answer yes or no.
This is correct. The sellers think they are punishing the state, while in reality they are punishing us gun owners in the state. By doing this they are actually supporting the laws passed and encouraging other states to follow California's lead. The way to protest this is to make MORE sales to California gun owners and buyers, not less. They are also shutting off quite a number of buyers for their products.1886 wrote:The sellers think they are punishing the state. They are only serving the state's desire to curb gun sales. In reality they only punish the potential buyers. 1886.
Marlinman,marlinman93 wrote:I feel sorry for you guys in Ca., but if I had to put up with politicians who force fed me this kind of baloney, I'd sell everything and move to another state.
Modoc ED wrote:As for the guy that got arrested at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport),...........................snip
EDIT:
Anyway, the guy that got arrested at LAX has been let go along with all his firearms and ammo as none of the ammo had been attached to any of the firearms and all firearms had been locked away in cases/boxes. His only crime (stupidity actually) was driving into a secure area subject to search with a truck load of guns and ammo in great quantity. He was on the way to a gun show and was picking up a friend at the airport to go with him.
Does that mean you plan to leave the country if...er... we have a Prez who plans to do the same thing?? It seems to me that we are all in on this thing together, and that every state is having gun rights eroded, one by one.marlinman93 wrote:I feel sorry for you guys in Ca., but if I had to put up with politicians who force fed me this kind of baloney, I'd sell everything and move to another state.
Oh MY! I LIKE your flag! Perhaps someone ought to make something like that up for every state, directed toward the Leftist leaders?Bogie35 wrote: And the state bird will be the one you and I can form by making a fist and extending the middle finger.
It was on the NBC News in Los Angeles. They had an interview with the guy after he was released. The whole item only took about three minutes.Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:Modoc ED wrote:As for the guy that got arrested at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport),...........................snip
EDIT:
Anyway, the guy that got arrested at LAX has been let go along with all his firearms and ammo as none of the ammo had been attached to any of the firearms and all firearms had been locked away in cases/boxes. His only crime (stupidity actually) was driving into a secure area subject to search with a truck load of guns and ammo in great quantity. He was on the way to a gun show and was picking up a friend at the airport to go with him.
Ed, do you have a source for that. I looked around but couldn't locate anything.
Not to worry, Vall, what happens in CA will soon follow in OR. After all, it IS run by escaped CA Dems, ain't it?marlinman93 wrote:I feel sorry for you guys in Ca., but if I had to put up with politicians who force fed me this kind of baloney, I'd sell everything and move to another state.
LAX must have a different secured area policy than TSA's. It's my understanding, other airport's secure ares are those area's past the TSA. If LAX has a different policy how would a person fly out of LAX with guns. It sounds like the way he had them packaged, depending on the amount of ammo he had, they could have been checked with his luggage. The reason I ask is it is not unusual for CAS shooters to do just that and if it's a man and his wife 21 guns wouldn't be unusual.Modoc ED wrote:It was on the NBC News in Los Angeles. They had an interview with the guy after he was released. The whole item only took about three minutes.Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:Modoc ED wrote:As for the guy that got arrested at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport),...........................snip
EDIT:
Anyway, the guy that got arrested at LAX has been let go along with all his firearms and ammo as none of the ammo had been attached to any of the firearms and all firearms had been locked away in cases/boxes. His only crime (stupidity actually) was driving into a secure area subject to search with a truck load of guns and ammo in great quantity. He was on the way to a gun show and was picking up a friend at the airport to go with him.
Ed, do you have a source for that. I looked around but couldn't locate anything.
Funny thing was that the night the guy was arrested, the cops said that he was legal as far as transporting the guns and ammo the way he was doing it. What got him arrested was taking the guns and ammo into LAX which is a secure area where no guns are allowed.
It really was a stupid move on the guys part. LAX is over-the-top as far as security is concerned. He should have known better.
That maybe California common sense but Texas State has preemption laws to forbid municpalities from making such gun laws. People fly in and out of Texas Airports with guns all the time. You check them in and out with your luggage. I know this because I've done it myself.Modoc ED wrote:Any municipality can set up any security measure they want around an airport that is in their jurisdiction in spite of what the TSA has set up.
I'd bet that if a guy was making his way into the airport at Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX with a pick-up truck bed full of rifles and ammunition and was stopped by the local police for a security check that he'd be in a relative tight spot for at least a little while.
Common sense -- it just boils down to common sense.
Mike D. wrote:Nate, it's just as easy to do here in CA, too. I have flown a few times with firearms in baggage and have not encountered any problems. The fellow at LAX should have had the sense to save himself some temporary grief by leaving his guns at home. Now that his name is public, he will be susceptible to thieves, for darned sure. I hope that everything he owns, firearms wise, is correctly locked up.
I believe there is a suit in Georgia over this very type of issue. The authority at Hartsfield Airport has setup more restrictive rules about firearms and they are being challenged by GeorgiaCarry.org based on a recent state law.Modoc ED wrote:Any municipality can set up any security measure they want around an airport that is in their jurisdiction in spite of what the TSA has set up.
I'd bet that if a guy was making his way into the airport at Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX with a pick-up truck bed full of rifles and ammunition and was stopped by the local police for a security check that he'd be in a relative tight spot for at least a little while.
Common sense -- it just boils down to common sense.
Rimfire McNutjob wrote:I believe there is a suit in Georgia over this very type of issue. The authority at Hartsfield Airport has setup more restrictive rules about firearms and they are being challenged by GeorgiaCarry.org based on a recent state law.Modoc ED wrote:Any municipality can set up any security measure they want around an airport that is in their jurisdiction in spite of what the TSA has set up.
I'd bet that if a guy was making his way into the airport at Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX with a pick-up truck bed full of rifles and ammunition and was stopped by the local police for a security check that he'd be in a relative tight spot for at least a little while.
Common sense -- it just boils down to common sense.