California Penal Code 12072(f)(1)

Larryjk · #1 06-13-2008, 11:53 PM

I got my letter yesterday from the Bureau of Firearms, "Republic of Kalifornia". Says my FFL is no longer any good to participate in interstate commerce with other FFL holders in Kalifornia unless I grin and bear more harrassement by contacting them to see if the FFL holder in their wonderful state is in good standing. I thought that was what the BATFE site was for? I don't see why we don't build a fence along the border with Kalifornia and treat them like any other foreign country!
Has every FFL holder received one of their letters or is it because I transferred a firearm to a FFL holder in that state? I wouldn't live in that state if I was promised all the gold in Fort Knox.

Tater · #2 06-14-2008, 12:59 AM

and I spent 18 of the first 19 years of my life there

PJgunner · #3 06-14-2008, 02:20 PM

I've heard of others complaining about that BS. Seems to me this just might violate a few federal commerce laws concerning interstate commerce.
Paul B.

Dan Morris · #4 06-14-2008, 08:00 PM

Any Idea how this would affect buying from Cal???????????
I get some good items from Ron Frye before it hits AA.
Dan

Also, ya can look at it this way...God created the San Andreas Fault........he just forgot to set the timer...
Dan

Larryjk · #5 06-15-2008, 12:37 AM

The letter and warning says I have to have their permission before I send a firearm to a FFL holder in Kalifornia. Nothing is said about them having me checked out before they can send a firearm to me. I guess the folks at the Bureau of Firearms are glad to see firearms leaving their "fine asylum", but don't want any coming in.
I am going to raise hell with the US BATFE about this being an infringement of my right to engage in interstate commerce as a right of my FFL.
What concerns me most is what if every other nuthouse state does the same thing. I would have to be registered in each state in order to ship to anyone that had an FFL. I thought that was the idea of the Federal Gov. being in charge of interstate commerce.

fabsroman · #6 06-15-2008, 09:51 AM

It is exactly why the federal government is in charge of interstate commerce. The same thing happened with double trailers many years ago. Every state had regulations on double trailers for trucks, and none of the regulations were the same. Hell, some states didn't even allow double trailers on their roads. Imagine what a mess it was for trucking companies to keep all that BS straight. The federal gov't stepped in and now double trailers and most of the trucking industry is regulated by the federal gov't. That way, the laws/rules are the same throughout all the roads and interstate commerce isn't made to be a hassle.

Seriously, you should take this up with the US govt, and send a copy of the letter to the NRA. It might just have to be litigated before any results are obtained. However, to be litigated, somebody would have to send a gun to California without checking on the status of the recipient's FFL, then the sender would have to be charged with a crime, and then the sender would have standing to challenge the law. Now, if this is a state specific law, how the hell is California going to be able to enforce it when you are not in California? Are they going to issue an arrest warrant for you in California, and then have the police in your state execute on it? This all sounds like a bunch of BS as far as I am concerned.

Rapier · #7 06-15-2008, 01:52 PM

Every time I see a reasonable talking or writing individual with a USSRC address I wonder: "What the hell are you thinking guy, its time to bail."

Will the last thinking person turn the lights out when they cross the border heading East. Laurel & Hardy are in charge of that dung heap and oh, by the way they are both dead.

Best,
Ed

denton · #8 06-15-2008, 10:21 PM

I learned about this silly new law on one of the pro-gun blogs a few days ago, and besides being silly, it just seemed so danged ODD.

Is it not true that the federal government has pre-empted the field of legislation covering the interstate commerce of firearms? So is this regulation an intrusion in the federal pre-emption?

Fabs' point is a good one. I live here in gun-friendly Utah. Utah has no such restriction. How is California going to impose their law on me? Besides, if I'm here and do something that is a crime in California, I have to be tried here because the US Constitution provides that "such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed". Fat chance getting a conviction from a Utah jury on that!

PJgunner · #9 06-16-2008, 02:19 AM

What Kalifornia probably will do is charge the receiving FFL in Kali with the crime. you'd be safe and he'd be out of business and probably be in jail.
When my dad died, California tried to take a big chunk out as inheritance tax. I told them to go to hell as I don't live in their state and I am not subject to their taxation. As I earned part of my retirement money in California, they also wanted me to pay income tax every year on a portion of my retirement fund. They didn't get that either. That state is so hard up for money theyll try anything. Fortunately, the lawyer handling the estate knew better and got them off my back.
I left the land of fruits, nuts and flakes in IIRC, Septemeber of 1970, never to return. All my family there is dead and gone so i see no reason to ever return to that communistic state, EVER!

Paul B.

DON WALKUP · #10 06-29-2008, 11:34 PM

what has to be kept in mind is that 'moonbeam' brown is now AG of kaliphornia. his attitude is 'to hell with the law....we will do what we want'...

when you think about it, one reason we have all these laws is because we tolerate the politicians that pass them.

what ever happened to "of the people, by the people, for the people"?

Larryjk · #11 06-30-2008, 10:07 PM

I had a short chat with my attorney last weekend and he said this has a bad smell to it. First, the Feds had passed a pre-emption bill that makes the FFL all that should be needed. Second, California is violating the interstate commerce clause.
He recommended I send a copy of the letter to the BATFE and copies to my US Senators and House Rep. I guess the long method is the much less expensive road to follow.

fabsroman · #12 06-30-2008, 11:21 PM

Larry,

Let me know how it goes with the politicians and BATFE.

TreeDoc · #13 07-03-2008, 11:07 AM

It's for real!

My buddy who owns a "store front" gun shop here received the letter only a couple weeks ago stating that EVERY gun purchased from out of state (which is virtually ALL of them) would require the approval from the State DOJ.

It's not a one time thing. Say he buys a gun from his distriutor Ellet Brothers, today. That sale has to be approved before Ellet can ship it. Tomorrow he orders another from them....same thing applies. They are gonna make it so tough on our FFL's here that they will essentially put them out of business.

The law says NOTHING about how long a wait it will be before CalDOJ has to approve the sale and get this, private sales are appartently exempt at this time.

There are a whole lot of decent, gun toting conservatives in this God Foresaken State and we're once again, taking it up the backside by this POS Liberal Guvmint of ours.

I'm thinkin' I wanna hang around for the day when this gets taken into the streets where we get to battle this assholes with our guns!

Larryjk · #14 07-03-2008, 03:14 PM

You are right. There is no doubt they are trying to run people out of business. You people in California are going to have to cure this on your own. There are far too many liberals who will vote for anyone to get what they want. Sorry, but there is not much folks in other states can do about a California problem.

GoodOlBoy · #15 07-07-2008, 10:37 AM

I know alot of guys here don't use gunbroker, but thought I would throw this in. I have noticed that the following is an example of MANY of the sales now up on gunbroker.

Quote:

Due to new dealer to dealer transfer requirements in California, WE WILL NO LONGER SHIP ANY FIREARMS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

GoodOlBoy