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
  #161  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:01 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 1,974
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidwhitewolf View Post
While I am certainly not a firearms litigator, and it will take other minds than mine to determine whether there is a case here worthy of action backed by CGF or other entities, I am just thinking of the parallels when applying such a letter to the South during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s -- or even more recent voter-registration drives in minority-dominated communities.

If a white Southern Sheriff and AG had sent such "friendly reminder" letters -- watch out new voter, you could be prosecuted for voter fraud if you exercise that right to vote, so y'all be careful -- to every newly registered voter during a minority-dominated voter registration drive, I think most folks would perceive the obvious intimidation -- even if the letters might have been legal on their face.

The intent may be to limit use of firearms in crimes, but if the method chosen to achieve that is to deliberately chill citizens from exercising their right to purchase a firearm -- which, in the current climate, I'm betting is arguably a political act -- there's all sorts of wrong with that. Councilman Garcetti's motion expressly noted that "success" was when letter recipients failed to complete their firearms purchase, after all.

Joe Huffman had some thoughts on this a while back with which I agree.

Ms. Tremblay & co. probably haven't given a second's thought before now to any of this; they're focused on criminals. Tough. They're public servants, after all, and they need to know we're out here. Voicemails from indignant, offended law-abiding gun owners politely detailing their annoyance might be a start.

"Ma'am, I just want to follow the law. And I'm confused. You sent me a letter right after I purchased a firearm, which is my lawful right. And obviously this letter is telling me my local prosecutor knows who I am, even though I'm a law-abiding citizen. That's pretty intimidating, don't you think? And the letter says that if I complete my firearms purchase, I might be subject to prosecution for something. And then I see that the City Council measured the success of these intimidating letters in their pilot program by how many firearms purchases were canceled after these letters were sent out. So is that why you sent me this letter? Is that what you want me to do? Do you want me to go back and cancel my purchase of the firearm I lawfully purchased to defend myself and my family? That's the way some people might read this letter. And I just want to follow the law. So please tell me what your office is telling me I should do in this letter, I'd really like to know."
^^^ This.

Noble
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:04 PM
Rusty Scabbard Rusty Scabbard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 448
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned View Post
I suspect that's what they are banking on - people treating as a benign issue that is no harm... slowly but surely they continue to push the envelope.

Personally I am concerned that they have the info - but more importantly, that they sent the letter publicly (mail isn't necessarily private, it can fall into anyone's hands - by mistake or on purpose).
With handgun registration, DOJ info is passed to LE agencies. If you're pulled over driving, the LEO can look up if you own registered handguns or RAWs They do not have this information for long guns, unless they were voluntarily registered with the DOJ. I believe information submitted for background checks is legally required to be deleted within a given time frame after the transaction specifically to prevent defacto registration of long guns. All this changes in 2014. But I believe it currently is a legal violation if the DOJ is storing or passing on long gun transfer records.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:45 PM
billofrights's Avatar
billofrights billofrights is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SFV
Posts: 2,083
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Well we live in Valley Glen, but the purchases were at Guns Direct in Burbank.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:50 PM
kingfan kingfan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 22
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

yeah! got same letter in the mail on friday. lets hope they do not do what
they did to gun owners in new york and post a list !
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 02-03-2013, 1:37 AM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingfan View Post
yeah! got same letter in the mail on friday. lets hope they do not do what
they did to gun owners in new york and post a list !
Humboldt county ccw list was printed in the North Coast Journal a few years back.

What they need to do is make it so information gained via FOIA is only usable for personal use, not public. Papers, tv, etc cannot show it. Dumbwad that printed the list should have been able to get in trouble for printing it. They didnt, just pissed off a bunch of folks.

The NCJ release that is.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 02-06-2013, 10:37 AM
gesundheit's Avatar
gesundheit gesundheit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,139
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

I wonder if these idiots will be wasting tax payers' money sending letters to car buyers telling them not to use their cars to run over people, pick up prostitutes, go over the speed limits, engage in driveby shootings, street racing, paint them pink and other crimes against humanity?

Last edited by gesundheit; 02-06-2013 at 10:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:06 PM
Ravenxc Ravenxc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hi all,
I definitely didn't expect my first post here to be on this topic! I received one of these letters yesterday. Has anyone received a response from Anne Tremblay yet? I'm debating what I can and should do if anything...
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:12 PM
hiyabrad hiyabrad is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 1,322
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenxc View Post
Hi all,
I definitely didn't expect my first post here to be on this topic! I received one of these letters yesterday. Has anyone received a response from Anne Tremblay yet? I'm debating what I can and should do if anything...
I spoke with her for 15 minutes the other day. Very nice. Towing the party line that the RAND report shows this letter does some good and that the buyer's info is protected by state and federal laws. She also said the letter is obviously not intended for an educated, concerned citizen like myself.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:19 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiyabrad View Post
I am feeling violated.

I'd send it back. Seriously.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:33 PM
Ravenxc Ravenxc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiyabrad View Post
I spoke with her for 15 minutes the other day. Very nice. Towing the party line that the RAND report shows this letter does some good and that the buyer's info is protected by state and federal laws. She also said the letter is obviously not intended for an educated, concerned citizen like myself.
Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like the expected response knowing that multiple "educated, concerned citizens" have probably been calling her.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:16 PM
Xombie Xombie is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 66
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This letter is a waste of money. Remember to vote NO on Measure A on March 5 to raise the L.A. sales tax from 9.0% to 9.5% for the city's general fund.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-07-2013, 1:17 AM
lp3056's Avatar
lp3056 lp3056 is online now
The Over Generalizer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 852
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I DROS'd last week and I still haven't seen a letter and I live in the Devonshire PD area. I noticed the letter has language regarding lease's. I own the residence(ok bank does for now) so I wonder if they they are only sending these letters to renters?
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-07-2013, 7:23 AM
hakenlag's Avatar
hakenlag hakenlag is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTokarev View Post
DROS and background checks are de facto registration.

I wonder if some people who voted for background in the recent poll would like to change there votes once they see how the government likes to use them.
People don't seem to understand that any document with their name on it makes it theirs.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-07-2013, 10:50 AM
jmdove's Avatar
jmdove jmdove is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno, California
Posts: 114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rero360 View Post
I'd wipe my butt with it after a hearty Indian cuisine dinner and mail it back to them. But in some instances I have been accused of not having a whole lot of tact.
Brother, I would say you are being MORE than reasonably patient with
these idiots.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-07-2013, 11:10 AM
soopafly's Avatar
soopafly soopafly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,946
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiyabrad View Post
I spoke with her for 15 minutes the other day. Very nice. Towing the party line that the RAND report shows this letter does some good and that the buyer's info is protected by state and federal laws. She also said the letter is obviously not intended for an educated, concerned citizen like myself.
I hope you asked: if the letter was not meant for you, then why is your time and the taxpayers' money being obviously wasted by sending one to you?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-07-2013, 5:30 PM
OneGun's Avatar
OneGun OneGun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 206
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Got mine... Not for a handgun. Will be calling to complain.

Thought the "equality forever" stamp was a nice touch.

Last edited by OneGun; 02-07-2013 at 5:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 02-07-2013, 7:04 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,330
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has anyone from CGF responded to this? It's hard to flip through pages of responses (wish search could limit the list to SGF responderes for instance)?

More importantly, has CGF decided this worth is not worth responding to formally (legally) and we now in the territory of the local PD regarding crime: "we don't respond to thefts since we have far more important crimes overwhelming us at this time" overload?

Every day another reason to move out of this insane state.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran

ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 02-07-2013, 8:04 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It is interesting to note that this letter comes from Carmen Trutanich, L.A. city attorney, who was elected with the help of none other than the Calguns foundation. Here is the original thread in which Bill asks people here to support Mr. Trutanich: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=122678

To quote Bill: "Nuch is Chuck Michel's (the "T" of TMLLP fame) law partner, so Nuch's beliefs should be pretty obvious to most of us here"

How times changes ...
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 02-07-2013, 9:44 PM
bedowinn bedowinn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Thank you for your concern

I would simply send her a nice letter thanking her for her concern.
I would then add that her approach as defined in her letter has inspired me to purchase another gun next week.
Thank you Anne, I always wanted an AR-15!

Best Regards
John Q Public
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 02-07-2013, 10:04 PM
Omega13device's Avatar
Omega13device Omega13device is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,959
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
It is interesting to note that this letter comes from Carmen Trutanich, L.A. city attorney, who was elected with the help of none other than the Calguns foundation. Here is the original thread in which Bill asks people here to support Mr. Trutanich: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=122678

To quote Bill: "Nuch is Chuck Michel's (the "T" of TMLLP fame) law partner, so Nuch's beliefs should be pretty obvious to most of us here"

How times changes ...
I wonder if "Nuch" at least took Bill out to dinner beforehand...
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 02-08-2013, 1:49 AM
The Fugitive's Avatar
The Fugitive The Fugitive is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 467
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Send it back and write thanks for wasting my tax money.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 02-08-2013, 2:36 AM
leitung's Avatar
leitung leitung is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 2,913
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Boy I am glad I got the hell out of that state.

If we don't get off our hind ends in WA we will end up in the same boat.
__________________
Former "Subject" of the People's Republic of California in "exile" in Washington State.

Last edited by leitung; 02-08-2013 at 2:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 02-08-2013, 8:03 AM
hakenlag's Avatar
hakenlag hakenlag is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leitung View Post
Boy I am glad I got the hell out of that state.

If we don't get off our hind ends in WA we will end up in the same boat.
Actually what's causing the problem in WA is the continued import of Californians. Oregon has become openly hostile to people with CA license plates. Half the Oregonians would be happy to nuke the Californian enclave of Bend, OR if it would solve their Californian problem.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:19 AM
creekside creekside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pauliedweasel View Post
Received my letter today. So let me get this straight, the Cal DOJ is knowingly sending information on firearms purchases to the LA City Attorney's Office?
More like someone in the City of Los Angeles is unlawfully accessing CLETS/AFS for an illegal purpose. Last time I looked, that was the kind of thing peace officers and dispatchers are criminally prosecuted for.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:37 AM
tap4154 tap4154 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
I'd send it back. Seriously.

After reading it, with so many REAL assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights and freedoms in this state from our Dem-fascist legislature, I find this of very little, if any, concern. In fact it may dissuade straw purchasers from picking up the weapon, and does help inform folks who are not up on the law.

I'm FAR more concerned with the new anti-gun bill being pushed, including trying to ban the bullet button again, which basically would kill the AR in CA IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 02-08-2013, 2:57 PM
10Rounder 10Rounder is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 50
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

i got one.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 02-08-2013, 3:11 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Truckee Meadows USA
Posts: 5,299
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiyabrad View Post
She also said the letter is obviously not intended for an educated, concerned citizen like myself.
Yet that is precisely the profile of over 90% of the people who received the letters.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheburashka View Post
A homebuilt AR pistol has a high cool factor and gives you cred at the range.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:34 AM
erayser erayser is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Send the letter back to his office with a note that he just lost your vote in his bid for re-election as City Attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:53 AM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tap4154 View Post
After reading it, with so many REAL assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights and freedoms in this state from our Dem-fascist legislature, I find this of very little, if any, concern. In fact it may dissuade straw purchasers from picking up the weapon, and does help inform folks who are not up on the law.

I'm FAR more concerned with the new anti-gun bill being pushed, including trying to ban the bullet button again, which basically would kill the AR in CA IMHO.
I challenge the whole premise of such a letter. Who are you trying to kid? If letters stopped people from committing crime we'd have letter departments not police departments. When we have real crime this is what elected officials are up to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 02-11-2013, 1:08 AM
Ishooter's Avatar
Ishooter Ishooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 423
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Did I read that letter right? It's a crime to transfer a firearm to any person without DROS. It tries to scare you hoping you don't know the law. For a private transfer, you don't need to go through DROS. Well, but it says "with a few exceptions"..., that's to cover their butts in case someone stands up and tells they're wrong. And the term firearm? It doesn't include C&R or any vintage guns.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 02-11-2013, 6:53 AM
chiz_65's Avatar
chiz_65 chiz_65 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 173
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishooter View Post
Did I read that letter right? It's a crime to transfer a firearm to any person without DROS. It tries to scare you hoping you don't know the law. For a private transfer, you don't need to go through DROS. Well, but it says "with a few exceptions"..., that's to cover their butts in case someone stands up and tells they're wrong. And the term firearm? It doesn't include C&R or any vintage guns.
In which case is a DROS not necessary in California?
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 02-11-2013, 8:31 AM
skibuff's Avatar
skibuff skibuff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 669
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
Yet that is precisely the profile of over 90% of the people who received the letters.

I'm sure it's 90% on Calguns but I'm not so sure it's 90% with the general public. there are a lot of clueless gun owners.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 02-11-2013, 8:58 AM
Dark Sky Solutions's Avatar
Dark Sky Solutions Dark Sky Solutions is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,233
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

WTF is all I can say
__________________
Doc
Dark Sky Solutions

DarkSkySolutions.com
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 02-11-2013, 9:17 AM
curtru's Avatar
curtru curtru is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: sacramento
Posts: 1,276
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So true. Scary how they are watching you
[QUOTE=Random_Monkey;10386677]The eye is watching us. [/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:39 PM
smalltime's Avatar
smalltime smalltime is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: 917xx
Posts: 209
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiz_65 View Post
In which case is a DROS not necessary in California?
Non-handgun transfer between immediate family member.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Tr...Family_Members
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 02-11-2013, 3:53 PM
beachbound beachbound is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 15
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What is the NRA and their LAWYERS, the gun manufacturers, the bullet manufactuers, etc doing to prevent this legislation from proceeding? I would hope with the money being contributed we have some smart Lawyers bringing this up as unconstitutional on several levels not just the 2nd Amendment, this is discriminatory on multiple levels, discriminatory on a PROHIBITED BASIS which is belive is against FEDERAL LAW. If we allow the politicians to create whatever laws they want and then it is up to us to challenge these laws in court, then the system is completely broken.

The liberal law makers are always making law abiding people responsible for the actions of criminals. Criminal steals your car and has a high speed chase, you can be held liable. Now it's guns, we can be held liable for a criminal stealing them and using them? We must carry liability insurance for them? I see many people posting (including myself) but I would like some clear direction as to what action we can take besides writing or phoning representatives, that's a joke really. We have to have significant participation with signatures in an effort to block these actions. Additionally, we need to hit the politicians where it counts, voting them out next time around.

I also want to see Law Enforcement backing the people of this state in our right to own, no new laws need be created, enforce the ones we have. If LE is siding with the politicians, they are siding to limit our freedoms and our personal protection which seems to be in direct conflict with their duty. The issues really revolve around not dealing with criminals effectively. The task force assigned to confiscating guns from known felons that are out of jail is insufficient for the task. Therefore, it is fault of those in charge (politicians) of jeopardizing the law abiding citizens by not having dealt with this a long time ago. If LE is not on our side they are against us. We should be seeking to vote to have their budgets cut significantly. If they can't differentiate between the law abiding and the criminals, I don't see the point in supporting their desire for greater and greater power, it can only be abused.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 02-11-2013, 3:58 PM
chillincody's Avatar
chillincody chillincody is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: el cajon ca 92021
Posts: 2,684
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

La doesnt have a gun problem....it has a LAPD and gang member problem
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 02-12-2013, 9:45 AM
jarobins85's Avatar
jarobins85 jarobins85 is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well said, the politicians are being influenced by our over reaching federal govt.

Sent from Droidzilla 1.0
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 02-12-2013, 2:24 PM
gunsnrovers's Avatar
gunsnrovers gunsnrovers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lost in Los Angeles
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Well I got mine today. Live in West LA. Did the PPT in Culver City on Friday 2/9. Letter dated and mailed Monday 2/11. I feel so very very special...
__________________
Jeff

كافر - Infidel

NRA PATRON MEMBER
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:03 PM
Davidwhitewolf's Avatar
Davidwhitewolf Davidwhitewolf is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Beautiful Skulls County
Posts: 610
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiz_65 View Post
In which case is a DROS not necessary in California?
Also, DROS is not necessary for transfer of a long gun more than 50 years old between California residents. That's good until January 1st, 2014. I got my first semi-automatic battle rifles (Garands) that way -- paperless, as they should be.
__________________

NRA Life Member


Honorary Board Member, the Calguns Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
Yes I'm an attorney. No, this post does not contain legal advice or opinion.
Read me@RNS
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 1:49 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.