DROS Delay After 17b and 1203.4(undetermined status)

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Hello to the cal guns community.

Here is my story. In 2001 I received a suspended sentence for a bad choice I made. I was on probation for 5 years and have stayed out of trouble since. I chose to hang out with the wrong people and accept any consequences of the choice I made. That being said I decided to try to restore my gun rights. I am now a father and I miss hunting and shooting and would really like to take my son hunting.

I hired a lawyer to file a 17(b) reduction and 1203.4 dismissal. The judge granted the motion and the court record now shows not guilty and dismissed as of 3/8/2019. The court sent the reduction and dismissal to the DOJ the same day.

I gave it a couple of months and then tried to purchase a firearm. 6/5/19 I received a call from the FFL informing me the DROS was denied. I received the letter for the denial and scheduled a live scan.

I am hoping this community will give me some guidance as to what to do after I get the live scan. I don't want to do something incorrectly that may delay the already lengthy process ahead. My lawyer said that DOJ may have received it but the FBI NCIS system may still show the record. I checked the FBI website and it says they are processing requests from september 2016. Thank you in advance for any support or suggestions. Also if someone knows how to get a live person on the phone at DOJ that would be much appreciated. I already filed out a request for them to contact me but it doesn't say when or if they will.

[pacrat]

WELCOME TO CALGUNS

HANG IN THERE. HELP IS ON THE WAY. Just not from me.

There is a means to hire a [facillatator-expeditor] for FBI rap sheets. And or NCIS background checks. And correcting mistakes.

I just don't know how to do it. But other, better informed individuals will be along shortly to give you the needed assistance.

[Cactus_Tim]

Request a copy of your record to see if it has been updated. They may just be dragging their feet.

Criminal Records - Request Your Own

The record review includes a form to challenge the contents of your criminal record.
Fill it out and submit it if there is an error.

[pacrat]

I gave it a couple of months and then tried to purchase a firearm. 6/5/19 I received a call from the FFL informing me the DROS was denied. I received the letter for the denial and scheduled a live scan.

OP, can you share the specifics of WHY you were denied, as stated in the letter?

That may be indicative of whether the issue is Stated or Fed records being incorrect.

[SkyHawk]

I would do a CA PFEC. It does not usually check NICS. If it comes back ‘eligible to own and purchase’ then you can assume the CA DOJ has likely updated your state file, and your problem is probably with the feds. By now though your state file may be poisoned by the DROS denial, but probably still worth the effort.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pfecfaqs

I would also get your FBI rap sheet.
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/id...summary-checks

You can have it in hours if you use an approved channeler.
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/id...er-submissions

Also consider *ANY* out of state law enforcement contact you may have had - ever. Any arrests with no disposition logged or even any out of state speeding tickets from long ago that may have gone unpaid. These (and more) can trip up your NICS check.

You mentioned you had a suspended sentence. Was it a state prison sentence or county jail sentence? If it was a state prison sentence, was the IMPOSITION of the sentence suspended, or was the EXECUTION of the sentence suspended? That makes a difference as to whether you were truly eligible for 17(b). Some folks have gotten 17(b) when they were really not eligible because they had a suspended EXECUTION of a state prison sentence, and only found out later after they tried to buy firearms. The DOJ knows the difference, believe me.

Anyhow, you can send me PM if you have questions or want to share answers in private. Good luck!

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Reason for denial is as follows:

Felon: Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United states, of the State of California, or of any other state, government, or country.

As far as time i served I was sentenced to 90 days in county jail and served 2 months and 10 days. I then had 5 years of probation. I may have mis-spoke when I said suspended sentence. The truth is I don't really don't know. The judge never mentioned going to prison. Just county jail. When I hired the lawyer for the reduction he did a background check and told me doing the 17b and 1203.4 would restore my rights. I just sent my lawyer an email to see if he can answer that for me. Soon as I know I will post the results.

The only other criminal history i have other than this was misdemeanor possession of marijuana from around the same time period. Nothing in any other state.

I had no idea your DOJ file could be poisoned by a DROS denial. Are there expediters for DOJ as well.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

I had no idea your DOJ file could be poisoned by a DROS denial. Are there expediters for DOJ as well.

That was sort of tongue in cheek, I have no idea either. But what I do know is the CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms can and does make notes on individuals files. Whether those notes are reviewed or considered during a PFEC, or whether even a DROS denial would be noted and/or considered during a PFEC, I also have no idea.

I usually suggest that people who get 17(b) do a PFEC before attempting to DROS the first time. But no way to put that cat back in the bag now so you just have to plow forward.

I do not know of any way to expedite a CA PFEC or CA records check. But they don’t take too long (relatively speaking) - I would do both as well as the FBI rap sheet.
https://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/record-review

Once you get your FBI rap sheet you may have something to go on, so do that right away.

It sounds like your sentence was probably only county jail, and since you got your 17(b) in 2001 - I believe that was after the courts figured out they were giving some people 17(b) who were not eligible and took steps to stop doing that, so your 17(b) is probably legit. You just need to figure out what is happening with the Fed NICS check.

[pacrat]

OP, when I said this in post #2;

I just don't know how to do it. But other, better informed individuals will be along shortly to give you the needed assistance.

Skyhawk is one of those "better informed" and "helpful individuals" I was speaking of.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

That was sort of tongue in cheek, I have no idea either.

You got me good. You had me ****ting my pants. I can't stop laughing.
I absolutely will not be running any more DROS until I know for sure.
Soon as I get more info I will make another post. Thank you for all the help.

[dsconstructs]

CalDOJ lags on updating your records, and sometimes they do not update them correctly. Do your own livescan PFEC. If it comes back clear then they updated their records and you're good to go. If it comes back as ineligible, follow the directions for disputing the record, and even then you might have a fight on your hands.
I've seen them update the records from a 1203.4 and 17b as only the 1203.4 which keeps you ineligible. Then they adamantly kept responding that the 1203.4 was correct even though as part of the dispute they were sent the 17b court paperwork highlighting the fact of 17b. Then finally one lady in particular at the DOJ was honest enough to accept the 17b and updated the record accordingly. Altogether from the court filing the 17b to an actual clear record with DOJ was about 6 months.
Little side note, a suspended sentence is supposed to be ineligible for the 17b, though they do go through sometimes. As long as you have that court order stating 17b you'll be fine....keep at it and it will get corrected in DOJ, but you may really have to hound them.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

You mentioned you had a suspended sentence. Was it a state prison sentence or county jail sentence? If it was a state prison sentence, was the IMPOSITION of the sentence suspended, or was the EXECUTION of the sentence suspended? That makes a difference as to whether you were truly eligible for 17(b). Some folks have gotten 17(b) when they were really not eligible because they had a suspended EXECUTION of a state prison sentence, and only found out later after they tried to buy firearms. The DOJ knows the difference, believe me.

Word from lawyer on legitimacy of 17b

You had probation; no state prison suspended. It could NOT have been reduced if it was state prison suspended.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by dsconstructs

CalDOJ lags on updating your records, and sometimes they do not update them correctly. Do your own livescan PFEC. If it comes back clear then they updated their records and you're good to go. If it comes back as ineligible, follow the directions for disputing the record, and even then you might have a fight on your hands.
I've seen them update the records from a 1203.4 and 17b as only the 1203.4 which keeps you ineligible. Then they adamantly kept responding that the 1203.4 was correct even though as part of the dispute they were sent the 17b court paperwork highlighting the fact of 17b. Then finally one lady in particular at the DOJ was honest enough to accept the 17b and updated the record accordingly. Altogether from the court filing the 17b to an actual clear record with DOJ was about 6 months.
Little side note, a suspended sentence is supposed to be ineligible for the 17b, though they do go through sometimes. As long as you have that court order stating 17b you'll be fine....keep at it and it will get corrected in DOJ, but you may really have to hound them.

Not so. If the court incorrectly issued a 17(b), DOJ is pretty good at catching those and correcting the record.

You correct in that California DOJ does a very poor job of correcting records. The "falling down" point in most cases that I've seen hasn't been DOJ itself, but rather the individual court clerks that enter information into the system.

It may also be useful for the OP to determine if the denial was the result of California DOJ, or the Federal NICS processes. But you should also allow for the possibility that the NICS reviewer determined that your case still fell under 18 USC 921(a)(20).

California's PC 17(b) process doesn't reconcile very well with the federal definition of a "Felony" (or more accurately " a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" - please refer to 18 USC 921(a)(20)). Under that statute, it's the maximum penalty for the crime that counts, not the penalty that you actually receive.

Under PC 17(b), a prosecutor can file a qualifying crime as a misdemeanor, in which case the maximum penalty that the court can award is a misdemeanor sentence. But section 17(b) also allows the court to reduce the charged crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. In that case, the maximum penalty that the court could award for the offense remains a felony.

I'm not aware of any case law, or agency guidance that resolves the question.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Not so. If the court incorrectly issued a 17(b), DOJ is pretty good at catching those and correcting the record.

You correct in that California DOJ does a very poor job of correcting records. The "falling down" point in most cases that I've seen hasn't been DOJ itself, but rather the individual court clerks that enter information into the system.

It may also be useful for the OP to determine if the denial was the result of California DOJ, or the Federal NICS processes. But you should also allow for the possibility that the NICS reviewer determined that your case still fell under 18 USC 921(a)(20).

California's PC 17(b) process doesn't reconcile very well with the federal definition of a "Felony" (or more accurately " a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" - please refer to 18 USC 921(a)(20)). Under that statute, it's the maximum penalty for the crime that counts, not the penalty that you actually receive.

Under PC 17(b), a prosecutor can file a qualifying crime as a misdemeanor, in which case the maximum penalty that the court can award is a misdemeanor sentence. But section 17(b) also allows the court to reduce the charged crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. In that case, the maximum penalty that the court could award for the offense remains a felony.

I'm not aware of any case law, or agency guidance that resolves the question.

As always I respect your opinions. But I am unclear on how the maximum penalty the court could award would cause the offense to remain a felony. I am not saying that the FBI does not take this position but I do not see how one can avoid the language in 17(b) that says "it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following circumstances: ... (3) When the court grants probation to a defendant and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor" and that portion of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) that states: "The term 'crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year' does not include - ... (B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less." and the portion that states:
"What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

As always I respect your opinions. But I am unclear on how the maximum penalty the court could award would cause the offense to remain a felony. I am not saying that the FBI does not take this position but I do not see how one can avoid the language in 17(b) that says "it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following circumstances: ... (3) When the court grants probation to a defendant and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor" and that portion of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) that states: "The term 'crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year' does not include - ... (B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less." and the portion that states:
"What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

BAJ475,

Let me illustrate by example. Suppose we have a subject who is arrested for a simple charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon under PC 245(a)(1). That offense is a 'Wobbler" under PC 17(b).

If the offense is charged by the prosecutor as a misdemeanor ("wobbled" by the prosecutor), then the maximum penalty that can be imposed by the court upon conviction is a year in county jail. Such a conviction clearly would not fall under 18 USC 921(a)(20)'s definition of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

On the other hand, if the crime was charged as a felony by the prosecutor, the judge also has the ability to reduce the charge, and when that occurs is most often done at sentencing ("wobbled" by the court), in this case, the court has the ability to impose a felony sentence, but choses not to. That's where PC 17(b) and 18 USC 921(a)(20) don't reconcile well.

It is possible to conclude that once the judge "wobbles" the offense level, that the judge cannot impose a felony sentence, and therefore the 18 USC 921(a)(20) standard is not met.

It is also possible to conclude that since the judge had the power to impose a felony sentence (by not "wobbling" the charge), that the 18 USC 921(a(20) standard is met.

And again, I'm not familiar with any case law, or agency practice, that forces one to accept either of these POV's over the other.

Your quoted language from Penal Code section 17(b) makes clear that once a crime level is wobbled (either by the court or by the prosecutor), that the resulting conviction is a misdemeanor. But I need to emphasize that the federal definition of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is completely independent of a state's classification of the offense as a misdemeanor or felony (and it's worth noting that the U.S. Code does not use the terms "Felony" or "Misdemeanor"). It's determined by the maximum penalty for the offense. In other words, it doesn't matter what the penalty is. It's what the penalty could have been that controls.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by RickD427

BAJ475,

Let me illustrate by example. Suppose we have a subject who is arrested for a simple charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon under PC 245(a)(1). That offense is a 'Wobbler" under PC 17(b).

If the offense is charged by the prosecutor as a misdemeanor ("wobbled" by the prosecutor), then the maximum penalty that can be imposed by the court upon conviction is a year in county jail. Such a conviction clearly would not fall under 18 USC 921(a)(20)'s definition of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

On the other hand, if the crime was charged as a felony by the prosecutor, the judge also has the ability to reduce the charge, and when that occurs is most often done at sentencing ("wobbled" by the court), in this case, the court has the ability to impose a felony sentence, but choses not to. That's where PC 17(b) and 18 USC 921(a)(20) don't reconcile well.

It is possible to conclude that once the judge "wobbles" the offense level, that the judge cannot impose a felony sentence, and therefore the 18 USC 921(a)(20) standard is not met.

It is also possible to conclude that since the judge had the power to impose a felony sentence (by not "wobbling" the charge), that the 18 USC 921(a(20) standard is met.

And again, I'm not familiar with any case law, or agency practice, that forces one to accept either of these POV's over the other.

Your quoted language from Penal Code section 17(b) makes clear that once a crime level is wobbled (either by the court or by the prosecutor), that the resulting conviction is a misdemeanor. But I need to emphasize that the federal definition of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is completely independent of a state's classification of the offense as a misdemeanor or felony (and it's worth noting that the U.S. Code does not use the terms "Felony" or "Misdemeanor"). It's determined by the maximum penalty for the offense. In other words, it doesn't matter what the penalty is. It's what the penalty could have been that controls.

If I recall correctly, it was 1986 when congress changed 18 USC 921(a)(20) so that it is no longer completely independent of a state's classification. (See the last part of my post.) But then there is Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. 2007 (1998) It holds that if there are any firearm restrictions after an expungement, the person remains banned under federal law. Of course, Justice Thomas wrote a dissent that shows why we need more like him as fewer of the libs on the court.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

I can post the court orders if that would help. According to the lawyer I hired this would restore my right to own and posses a firearm.

[Chewy65]

Whether a conviction for a wobbler is a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year is not the issue, imo. I do not believe whether or not a wobbler conviction is originally treated as a felony bears on its standing after it has been expunged, set aside, or pardoned, unless gu rights are expressly not restored.

(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

I just saw BAJ's post re Canon, which mine seems to fit.

[SB1942]

Fitz,

Check your PM box.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Ok, so I got my live scan back. I am having a little trouble understanding the information. Is there any more informed individuals that could help me decipher the results and figure out where the reason for the denial is coming from. I could scan them and send them via pm. I don't think posting them to this post would be a good idea. Thanks

[SB1942]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

Ok, so I got my live scan back. I am having a little trouble understanding the information. Is there any more informed individuals that could help me decipher the results and figure out where the reason for the denial is coming from. I could scan them and send them via pm. I don't think posting them to this post would be a good idea. Thanks

PM sent

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Update:
I sent in a Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness back in June 2019. I hadn't received anything in the mail so I called CA DOJ in September 2019. The agent I spoke to said they didn't have a record of ever receiving the Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness BCIA 8706.

I sent another BCIA 8706 with the supporting documents certified return receipt. I received an e-mail confirming they received the BCIA 8706 Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness and documents on October 2nd.

Does anyone know how long it takes for Ca DOJ to review and complete a BCIA 8706 Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness? Beloe is a copy of the e-mail I received.

Thank you for contacting the California Department of Justice (DOJ), Record Review and Challenge

Section concerning the status of your Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness as it pertains to

your California summary criminal history record.



All criminal record challenges are processed in order of the date received. Our records indicate that your

Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness was received on October 2, 2019.



Consequently, the DOJ is still in the process of reviewing and researching your claim. Upon completion

a response letter will be mailed to the address provided with your claim. DOJ will also contact the Federal

Bureau of Investigation to amend their summary criminal history record, so that it matches the criminal

history record as maintained by the California DOJ.



We appreciate you taking the time to submit your inquiry and thank you for your patience.

California Department of Justice

Applicant & Record Quality Services Branch

Record Review and Challenge Section

recordreview@doj.ca.gov

[darkwater34]

The old CALDOJ Circle Jerk any denial sucks the whole process of dealing with a denial seems to thwart the whole process of firearm ownership. I am still waiting for my appeal it is going damn near on five years keep checking every month once or twice would not hurt. I know this does not help but just so you know what you are in for.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Well I'm not willing to just sit back and wait five years. I know I made a mistake when I was 18 and am lucky to have a path to firearm ownership still but five years is unacceptable. I thought about writing my local senator. I'm going to just be patient for now and see what happens. If anyone has completed the process recently and has some more insight it would be appreciated.

[SkyHawk]

If you need a lawyer to work with DOJ, I highly recommend Jason Davis http://www.calgunlawyers.com/

Or Adam Richards https://www.ajrlaw.net/

Life is short, I wouldn’t wait if you have the means. You probably will not have to sue but you may need to get their (DOJ) attention.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

UPDATE:
Today I sent an appointment request to speak with my District 1 Senator Brian Dahle. Another Cal Gunner suggested contacting my government representative.
In my most recent phone conversation with CA DOJ I was told my particular issue is the reduction to misdemeanor and plea of not guilty shows up, however it does not state how the charge was reduced. 17b restores gun rights, some prop 64, 49 reductions do not.
One step closer to being free.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

UPDATE:
Today I sent an appointment request to speak with my District 1 Senator Brian Dahle. Another Cal Gunner suggested contacting my government representative.
In my most recent phone conversation with CA DOJ I was told my particular issue is the reduction to misdemeanor and plea of not guilty shows up, however it does not state how the charge was reduced. 17b restores gun rights, some prop 64, 49 reductions do not.
One step closer to being free.

Do you have a copy of the 17(b) order? You need to have one.

You may want to get the court clerk to retransmit it to the DOJ.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Do you have a copy of the 17(b) order? You need to have one.

You may want to get the court clerk to retransmit it to the DOJ.

Thanks Skyhawk. Yes I have several copies. I sent one set to the CA DOJ with my Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness. I did contact the court clerk and the orders were sent to CA DOJ 3/8/19 on the day they were grated. CA DOJ told me the records were received. The specific entry shows "Reduced to Misdemeanor", however it does not state how it was reduced. I am just being patient and waiting for CA DOJ to amend the record to reflect the 17b.

I do have a question regarding the following:

Identify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

Will this affect me at all? I read that its the maximum sentence for a crime that counts and not the time served. Even if I have a 17b will I still be a prohibited person?

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

Will this affect me at all? I read that its the maximum sentence for a crime that counts and not the time served. Even if I have a 17b will I still be a prohibited person?

The feds recognize reductions and restoration of firearms firearms rights given by states. So you are not a prohibited person.

This is an old document, but it does show that the feds keep very good notes on a state by state basis of the restoration procedures:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ssprfs05.pdf

[grumeazy]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

Thanks Skyhawk. Yes I have several copies. I sent one set to the CA DOJ with my Claim of Alleged Inaccuracy or Incompleteness. I did contact the court clerk and the orders were sent to CA DOJ 3/8/19 on the day they were grated. CA DOJ told me the records were received. The specific entry shows "Reduced to Misdemeanor", however it does not state how it was reduced. I am just being patient and waiting for CA DOJ to amend the record to reflect the 17b.

I do have a question regarding the following:



Will this affect me at all? I read that its the maximum sentence for a crime that counts and not the time served. Even if I have a 17b will I still be a prohibited person?

I had a felony reduced via prop 64 and had to appeal the DOJ to update my record as well. It took about 10 months from the time I sent it to receive a letter back stating it was corrected.

After that the first purchase went undetermined, second went approved after delay, third was natural 10 day.

You will get there, but the DOJ takes their sweet time. They are super fast at adding stuff to your criminal history but they don't like taking anything off.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Today I received my amended Ca DOJ criminal history file. My request to have it amended was granted. They received my request 10/2/19 and I received the amendment in the mail 12/11/19. CA DOJ really impressed me with how quickly they amended my record to reflect the 17B. I really thought I was going to be in for a wait. Below I am attaching photos of the records before and after.

Now that I have it amended should I do the Firearms Eligibility check first before trying to re DROS, or just do another DROS and skip the eligibility check? Is there any benefit to either way. I have a firearm bought and paid for sitting at the FFL.

Amended:



Origonal:

[instaramen]

Do a eligibility check. If you fail the dros, there may be a restocking fee. Depending on where you go, it could be either a set amount or percentage. If you fail the dros and buy a high price item and the restocking fee is percentage based, you just made an expensive mistake.

[SkyHawk]

Congrats! I personally would just do a DROS not a PFEC at this point. A PFEC costs $20 and it must be notarized which for most people will add even more to the cost and the hassle.

Go somewhere with no restock fee. IIRC the large shops like Sportsmans Warehouse do not charge a restock fee if you fail DROS, but double check. There is a chance Santa may yet deliver a gun under the tree this year!

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Congrats! I personally would just do a DROS not a PFEC at this point. A PFEC costs $20 and it must be notarized which for most people will add even more to the cost and the hassle.

Go somewhere with no restock fee. IIRC the large shops like Sportsmans Warehouse do not charge a restock fee if you fail DROS, but double check. There is a chance Santa may yet deliver a gun under the tree this year!

I was kind of leaning toward this route. My FFL does not charge a restocking fee and has agreed to just hang onto the firearm until I get all this squared away. If only I knew what I knew now when I was 18. Thanks again for all the help and support I received from the members of Cal Guns. I will let you know how the DROS goes.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

So I just got a call from my FFL. Purchase was Delayed as of today. I was due to pick up on the 22nd. I kind of figured this would happen based on what others have posted. I am hopeful that it will be cleared before the 22nd. Atleast it was not Denied this time.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

So I just got a call from my FFL. Purchase was Delayed as of today. I was due to pick up on the 22nd. I kind of figured this would happen based on what others have posted. I am hopeful that it will be cleared before the 22nd. Atleast it was not Denied this time.

Hopefully, your LGS is run in an honorable fashion that adheres to the laws as written.
And if your current DELAYED STATUS goes the 30 day limit. They will release on UNDETERMINED.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

So I just got a call from my FFL. Purchase was Delayed as of today. I was due to pick up on the 22nd. I kind of figured this would happen based on what others have posted. I am hopeful that it will be cleared before the 22nd. Atleast it was not Denied this time.

Keep the faith, let us know what happens.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Just received this letter. Pretty disheartening. Is there a chance even with getting my record cleared I would still be prohibited? My FFL does not release on undetermined. In my case I wouldn't want to risk taking possession without a PROCEED. What now?

[H20guy]

Since my good buddy runs an FFL , I believe that is the standard delay letter that gets sent out! But I could be wrong!

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by f1tzg3r4ld

Just received this letter. Pretty disheartening. Is there a chance even with getting my record cleared I would still be prohibited? My FFL does not release on undetermined. In my case I wouldn't want to risk taking possession without a PROCEED. What now?

This is pretty expected for your situation, and a good reason you should always go to FFL who will release on undetermined.

All you can do now is wait.

[f1tzg3r4ld]

Ok. Thank you. Who knows maybe they will approve it before Christmas. Dear Santa all I want for Christmas is my firearm rights back.