Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-25-2019, 6:44 PM
HighCapAssaultOpinionator's Avatar
HighCapAssaultOpinionator HighCapAssaultOpinionator is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The higher the number and stronger the severity of illegal laws that get passed, the higher likelihood that the SCOTUS will take up a a case on it and rule these fees as illegal infringements (which they are). The 2A cases being fought now (like Duncan V Bercerra) only existed because of the overzealous legislators in supermajority states getting cocky. Many of us purchased CA-legal SCM's for the first time ever just because of such overreach. And now there is a good chance to permanently affirm the right to have them for the whole US.

If they want to take away guns, they are gong to have to amend the constitution, and that sn't going to happen any time soon.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-26-2019, 1:24 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco75a View Post
Unintended consequences - I wonder if their funding drops off a cliff because they made the txfer fee too high they'd go back and lower them. Or will they just gloat not as many people are buying firearms anymore and consider their work done.
I don't see that Seattle dropped its $25 tax, nor Crook County for that matter. They do not care if it fails to generate projected income. If it forces sales to other places and dealers out of business then it has had the desired effect, which ios to reduce the number of firearms sales, but without having to admit that this is the actual intent.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-21-2019, 4:12 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 805
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just an update here:
AB-18 was postponed for a year as a "2-year" bill as part of Suspense File voting process in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

As for AB-1699, the fee increase is still coming, but the uncapping of fees part is removed. See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
AB-1669 read third time and amended on 5/20.

Welllll... we have amendments.

So first the bad news... the fee in this bill is still going to be increased by $32.19.

Now the good news:
The fee increases have once again been limited by the rate of the California Consumer Price Index (It is argued that if the CA DoJ had continued raising the fee per the Price Index, that it would currently be at $32.19)
The portions of the bill that completely unlimit the fee has been removed.
28225(b)(12) has been removed, which allowed the CA DoJ to set the fee to fund any other firearm enforcement activity they came up with. It also removed the new fee setting scheme that was proposed.

I'd call this a lesser wound in the end. The fee should not be increased, but this is not as bad as it was previously. Should Michel & Associates turn around Gentry v. Becerra once again, we may be able to get the fee lowered in the future. Hoping the bill still fails, but I'm not holding my breath.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-21-2019, 7:48 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,035
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

The problem is that it is impossible to make money being an FFL. Home FFLs are dying. Lines at B&M FFLs are becoming like breadlines. Retailers are loathe to expand FFL processing staff because it costs them money to do transfers. The whole system is broken.

Increasing the fees may be the only way to at least make the FFL process a bit less painful for all of us (having just had to tolerate hours long lines for both transfer and pickup at a retail FFL recently).

Yes, it is ridiculous that we are bearing the cost of this (both time and money), but what did you expect? A subsidy from CA?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-21-2019, 12:01 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 805
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Perhaps it could be that I haven't had my caffeine yet today, but I don't quite understand what you mean about the fees being raised being beneficial to retailers.

These are fees that go to the state, not retailers. The $25 excise tax would go to the VIP grant program, and the DROS increase would go to CA DoJ. None of this has to do with fees that the FFLs charge for their time.

If you're saying that maybe the fee increase will improve and fix the... transfer/DROS software at the CA DoJ maybe? I wouldn't be so sure, considering that the point of Gentry v Becerra was that the DROS account had a surplus, and that they raided that surplus to fund APPS for seizing firearms from prohibited persons.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-21-2019, 12:14 PM
harbormaster's Avatar
harbormaster harbormaster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Marina on the Delta
Posts: 283
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

More cost = fewer gun owners = more democratic voters.
Mission accomplished.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:08 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,035
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
These are fees that go to the state, not retailers. The $25 excise tax would go to the VIP grant program, and the DROS increase would go to CA DoJ. None of this has to do with fees that the FFLs charge for their time.
Ugh. If so I retract my post. If FFLs can't charge more, this is pure BS
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:38 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 805
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ah yeah np. For FFLs... if you're talking just the transfer for selling a firearm to someone, they can charge whatever fee they want on top of the DROS/etc. state fees, except in case of when they handle a PPT face-to-face transfer between two individuals, then it can't exceed $10 iirc.

However yeah, increased state fees will likely eat into the sales of local gun stores as-is, depending on if the higher fees cause reduced sales. I think it would hit cheaper firearms the hardest, like the Ruger 10/22 (no rimfire exemptions in the AB-18 excise tax).
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-22-2019, 2:08 AM
BajaJames83's Avatar
BajaJames83 BajaJames83 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North West SD county
Posts: 5,079
iTrader: 330 / 100%
Default

After doing several transactions in other states before I moved to CA I can tell you out of state FFLs dont have to deal with this BS can get you out the door in 15mins or less.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-25-2019, 12:39 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 805
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

AB-1669 was amended once again. What a wild ride. See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
AB-1669 read third time and amended on 5/25.

Well once again... there's a lot to be said here, and I'm surprised on how this bill is being handled. I'd say maybe it suggests that either there's political problems in getting the votes (which I would find unlikely, but you never know), or it's possibly indicating that they think their case might be weak in Gentry v Becerra, and they need to sidestep it completely.

So... remember that whole new version of section 28225 with the $32.19 fee thing being the new thing? Poof! Gone. Furthermore, in the current section 28225 that stands? This bill will now remove (b)(11), which is the only subdivision that mentions anything about enforcement.

Instead, what they're doing is creating 28233. This will establish the "Dealers' Record of Sale Supplemental Account of the General Fund", and it will set an additional fee of $13.19 on each firearm transaction. This fund can be used, upon appropriation by the legislature, for "reasonable costs" of firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, possession, loan, or transfer of firearms (pursuant to provisions in 16580). Finally, the fee is limited by cost of living increases (California Consumer Index)

Finally, this changes the vote to pass this from a Two-Thirds vote to a Majority vote (which is why I wonder if it was going to have trouble passing, but again, I'd find it unlikely).

So... I'm curious how this affects Gentry v Becerra... it wouldn't completely moot it since we're still talking about misuse of funds previously that were raided, right?

Anyhow, at the end of the day, instead of getting an increase of the $14 fee that is $32.19, we're instead getting an increase of $14 + $13.19 = $27.19. I still don't like it, but that's... relatively good news?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-25-2019, 12:54 AM
ScottyXbones's Avatar
ScottyXbones ScottyXbones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 918
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It might be good news today, but that money is still going to be spent on armored personnel carriers, body armor and incindiary grenades when it comes time to confiscate all semi auto guns in a few years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:28 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 805
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For those following this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
Amended on 6/20.

Ugh. Okay, so... What the hell. Let me start with what's changed.

Previously on Days of our Gun Control Bills...

The DROS fee was set back to $14 for background checks, and a new supplemental "enforcement" fee was created amounting to $13.19, totaling $27.19. Though now that I think of it, the current DROS fee is $19 (from limited Cost of Living adjustments), so that means that it wouldn't have set it at $14, but would instead set it at $19, which added with $13.19 = $32.19.
Apologies, I forgot to count that in my math last time.

So, new amendments: Basically cut down the DROS fee from a base of $14 ($19) to $1, and set the new supplemental "enforcement" fee to $31.19, for a total of $32.19.

Now, the DROS account last I checked was raided and had to pay back a loan, so... this is raiding the DROS account even more?

Furthermore, what's not clear to me is... the DROS is limited by "actual costs", and there was a question of whether the fee actually needed to be $19 at its current rate to cover actual costs (there was a surplus as I recall). If they set the fee to $1 now, does "cannot exceed the consumer price index" clause assess starting on the day that this new bill becomes law? or does it assess on the original date that DROS started to be collected years ago?

If it's the latter, that means that the $1 fee will increase dramatically after the bill is passed, and our combined fee (from the DROS + enforcement) will be greater than $32.19.

Anyone knowledgeable on how that'd work?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.