Ammo Background Checks in CA

I haven't read the actual law but I'd be surprised if it doesn't address "importation." If it does, bringing back ammo from a neighboring state would be a crime.
Click to expand...

Correct , you can't import ammo with out it going through an FFL if you're a resident of the state . The interesting thing is a family member can bring in as much as they want and give it to you . They can't sell it to you and you can't reimburse them but they can give it away . There is a gray area as to if they can take donations :rolleyes:

Now that's based on what my buddy that's in the lawsuit said his lawyer told him . Now that's a few to many people involved in this chain of info so I'm not sure how much of it is 100% accurate , I'm sure some if not most is true .

The thing I'm not sure about is if there is no relation , can a resident from another state bring ammo in . I'd think the "no importing of ammo" part of the law would cover that but then again some how a family member can . I should add the question was posed to the lawyer " can my child " bring me ammo ? Maybe your second cousin can't but Parents , grandparents or children can ???

This is where the specific wording and interpretation of said wording comes into play which is way over my head .
 
There's no substitute for the source:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/statquery

30367. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 30345 and 30366, the sale of
ammunition between the following is authorized so long as it does not
exceed 50 rounds per month:
(1) The sale of ammunition between licensed hunters while engaged
in lawful hunting activity.
(2) The sale of ammunition between immediate family members,
spouses, or registered domestic partners.
(b) Notwithstanding Sections 30345 and 30366, the sale of
ammunition by a private individual to an authorized representative of
a city, city and county, county, state, or the federal government,
as part of a voluntary program is authorized.
(c) Ammunition acquired pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
disposed of in the same manner as set forth for firearms in Section
18000, 18005, or 34000.

30368. (a) Commencing July 1, 2019, a resident of this state
shall not bring or transport into this state any ammunition that he
or she purchased from outside of this state unless he or she first
has that ammunition delivered to an ammunition vendor in this state
for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Section 30366.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following
bringing or transporting into this state any ammunition:
(1) A firearms dealer licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to
26915, inclusive.
(2) A person who is on the centralized list of federal firearms
licensees maintained by the department pursuant to Article 6
(commencing with Section 28450) of Chapter 6 of Division 6.
(3) A gunsmith as defined in Section 16630.
(4) A wholesaler as defined in Section 17340.
(5) A manufacturer or importer of firearms or ammunition licensed
pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of
the United States Code, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(6) An ammunition vendor.
(7) A person who is licensed as a collector of firearms pursuant
to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United
States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, whose
licensed premises are within this state, and who has a current
certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 26710.
(8) Authorized law enforcement representatives of cities,
counties, cities and counties, or state or federal governments for
exclusive use by those government agencies if, prior to the
importation, the person has written authorization from the head of
the agency authorizing the acquisition of that ammunition. Proper
written authorization is defined as verifiable written certification
from the head of the agency, or designee, by which the person is
employed, identifying the employee as an individual authorized to
acquire and import ammunition, and authorizing the transaction for
the exclusive use of the agency by which he or she is employed.
(9) A properly identified sworn peace officer, as defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or
properly identified sworn member of a federal law enforcement agency
who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the
officer's duties.
(10) A contract or common carrier or an authorized agent or
employee thereof, when acting in conformity with applicable federal
law.
(11) A person who purchases the ammunition from an immediate
family member, spouse, or registered domestic partner if the person
brings or transports into this state no more than 50 rounds.
(12) The executor or administrator of an estate that includes
ammunition.
(13) A person that at the time he or she acquired the ammunition
was not a resident of this state.
(14) Ammunition that is imported into this country pursuant to
provisions of Section 925(a)(4) of Title 18 of the United States
Code.
(15) A licensed hunter who purchased the ammunition outside of
this state for use in a lawful hunting activity that occurred outside
of this state if the person brings or imports no more than 50 rounds
into this state and the ammunition is designed and intended for use
in the firearm the hunter used in that hunting activity.
(16) A person who attended and participated in an organized
competitive match or league competition that involves the use of
firearms in a match or competition sponsored by, conducted under the
auspices of, or approved by, a law enforcement agency or a nationally
or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes
education about, firearms, and the person brings or imports into this
state no more than 50 rounds of ammunition designed and intended to
be used in the firearm the person used in the match or competition.
Click to expand...
See 30368(b)(11) -- You can purchase ammunition from an immediate family member not to exceed 50 rounds.

Disclaimer; I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Read the language for yourself and decide what you think it means. As I read it, "the person" is you, not the family member. You can buy up to 50 rounds from a family member in Nevada and you can import up to 50 rounds, but the way I read it a relative canNOT import 50 rounds into California and then sell it to you.
 
I think (13) is the bigger point because it does not specify an amount and if the child/family member is not a resident when purchasing the ammo , what does that mean ?

Section 30366.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following
bringing or transporting into this state any ammunition:

(13) A person that at the time he or she acquired the ammunition
was not a resident of this state.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Matal god said:
I think (13) is the bigger point because it does not specify an amount and if the child/family member is not a resident when purchasing the ammo , what does that mean ?
Click to expand...
I would say that it means an out of state relative can bring into the state of California as much ammunition as they can carry. Then the issue is what they can do with said ammunition ...

I'm pretty sure the law doesn't allow him to sell it, except to a California authorized "ammunition vendor." I'm too tired to wade through the legalese to see if he (the out-of-state relative) can give it away. Please note that the two sections I reproduced above are not the full extent of the ammo law -- you have to open the link I provided and read the entire law.
 
Well, 6 weeks into the Cali Ammo Eligibility Check Law out here and I’ve had one Basic Eligibility Check @$19 that passed, I’ve had 3 Standard Eligibility checks that passed @$1/ea, and 2 Standard Eligibility checks that failed, no charge. The famous retailer that did my Basic check has raised their ammo prices since July 1st when the law went into effect. So I’m not spending my $ there for the foreseeable future. Wally’s has not raised their ammo prices and they only do the Standard $1 Eligibility Check. In order to pass a Standard check, you need to have at least one firearm in the Cali AFS (Automated Firearm System) database and your address in the system has to match the address on your REAL ID compliant CA drivers license. If your D/L is not (yet) REAL ID compliant but you have a firearm with a current address, you need to have your US passport with you to buy ammo, with a $1 Standard Eligibility Check.

Since people are failing Standard ammo checks routinely, the local Wally’s is always well stocked with ammo (and voila, the state succeeds in reducing ammo sales). If you moved within CA since you bought your firearm, you have to update your AFS info online to pass a Standard check. If you moved to CA from another state, you have to complete & mail a New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership Form, with $19, and a scan of your REAL ID compliant CA drivers license, to the CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms, to get your firearms into the AFS, necessary to qualify for the $1 Standard Eligibility Ammo Check to use with guns that were brought in when you moved into the state. The local indoor range where I shoot does not require Ammo Eligibility Checks when you buy ammo there, since the law has some kind of exemption for gun ranges, since the ammo (in theory) is used up where it is bought. But they don’t inspect your range bag to make sure that you aren’t carrying out ammo that hasn’t been eligibility checked.
 
Last edited:
Did you file an appeal on the failures ? I’d love to know/understand how you can pass one day and fail another ? I’d call the lawyer involved in this case and ask if they’d like all the transaction info on all your purchases .
 
Metal god: said:
Did you file an appeal on the failures ? I’d love to know/understand how you can pass one day and fail another ? I’d call the lawyer involved in this case and ask if they’d like all the transaction info on all your purchases
Click to expand...

I think the guy at Wally’s fat-fingered the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) inputs into the Cali AFS, so I got a failed eligibility check, no biggie, they don’t charge for a failed standard eligibility check, and those Wally’s folks need all the computer input practice they can get - LOL. I checked the failed DROS number online & it said there were no current firearms records in the CA AFS, and I have the acknowledgements from the CA Bureau of Firearms so I know I have approved firearms records in the system. No way I could ever imagine such a “Charlie Foxtrot” situation to go & buy ammo in this state!
 
I am not in California and have not followed this issue closely, but I am curious about the requirements for dealing with an internet order or mail order of ammo shipped to a buyer in CA from an out of state retailer.
 
but I am curious about the requirements for dealing with an internet order or mail order of ammo shipped to a buyer in CA from an out of state retailer.
Click to expand...

it appears to me that this section would cover online (out of CA) purchases,

30368. (a) Commencing July 1, 2019, a resident of this state
shall not bring or transport into this state any ammunition that he
or she purchased from outside of this state unless he or she first
has that ammunition delivered to an ammunition vendor in this state
for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Section 30366.
Click to expand...

As I read it, no direct to your door shipment allowed any more. Buy it online, have it shipped to a CA "ammunition vendor' and pick it up from them, after you pass the background check.
 
44 AMP is correct but will add there is a fee from the local vendor to except and store your ammo until you pick it up . Those fees change from store to store but generally it makes your online cost savings a lot less and in some cases it would actually cost you more .

It’s really not in the vendors best interest to except out of state orders rather then sell you there ammo . Some make it completely not worth ordering online while others make it barely worth it to the point of why bother . I’m sure there are some vendors helping us out but they’re not easy to find or not in your area .
 
I am not in California and have not followed this issue closely
Click to expand...
CYB = Count Yer Blessings!

...but I am curious about the requirements for dealing with an internet order or mail order of ammo shipped to a buyer in CA from an out of state retailer.
Click to expand...

I think the ammo has to ship to a CA FFL, then you have to show up at the FFL in person to complete the eligibility check, then you haul your ammo home. I’m almost sure the FFL will probably charge an admin fee over the cost of the eligibility check.
 
Don’t want to jinx it , at lunch recess right now but it’s looking good for our side . This judge really knows his stuff . FWIW he’s the same judge that blocked the mag restrictions a short time ago . Fingers crossed
 
Last edited:
Ok just got done I was there all day , wish I had brought a note pad , lots of things talked about in there .

Short version is our side believes there are to many rejections in the system ( 10,000+) in July with only 106 of those actually being prohibited persons . Something like 18% rejections in July . So we are saying this system is over burdensome to the general public . It is denying far to many who other wise should not be denied while only preventing very few that are actually prohibited persons .

The state is claiming those 10k+ were simple mistakes that can easily be fixed . Things like mismatching addresses because you moved . didn't know you were not in the system yet or clerical errors . which they claim are all easy fixes .

Our side said fixing 10k+ mistakes when the government is involved is never an easy fix and it still takes hours to days to resolve . This is putting an undo burden on law abiding citizens .

In the end the judge put his ruling on hold for 30 to 60 days so the state can produce a list of all 10k+ denials and why each was denied . He is having a hard time excepting you can be denied and not know why or how to fix it right away . It appears he's looking to see if the system is fixable , broken or just not well designed .


On a side note , Right at the beginning the state conceded if you were from out of state visiting for hunting or what ever you can just have a friend who is a CA resident buy you some ammo or you can give that friend the money to buy you ammo and that was all legal . Which the judge just shook his head in disbelief because the state just said it's OK to do straw purchases in the state of CA . I mean we all just sat there with are mouths open , Did the state just lob one up to be hit out of the park . I thought case closed right there but it went on for another 2 hours .

Anyways very interesting , The first part of the day was looking good for us . The judge was challenging the state with some very good questions that they did not have great answers for . The state did come around later with some good counter punches after lunch . Our guy did some good work in there and I'd like to thank him for that . We talked with him at lunch and after and he seemed optimistic and thinks the judge is leaning are way but believes the judge wants to be clear the system is not working before making his ruling .

The judge seemed concerned that the law was not equal to out of state vendors when they were talking commerce clause . Sure Walmart and Dicks have stores in CA but other vendors out of state do not . He seemed to be saying he didn't think it was fare CA was mandating if you sold a product to a CA resident . You as the business owner had to have a store in CA to do so .

He also brought up the face to face part of the law . He asked the state " with all the technology out there today why can't we just skype or facetime with the store to prove we are who we say we are" . Something like having your face on the camera/screen and hold up your photo ID to prove you are who you claim to be ? The state countered that pretty good giving the example of that would not work buying alcohol , you can't just facetime with the store and have them deliver you beer , there still needs to be a face to face check on that .

Anyways like I said there was a lot of things debated in there and I can't remember everything off the top of my head . Feel free to ask questions , maybe they will bring back some of my memory's lol
 
Last edited:
Metal god said:
He also brought up the face to face part of the law . He asked the state " with all the technology out there today why can't we just skype or facetime with the store to prove we are who we say we are" . Something like having your face on the camera/screen and hold up your photo ID to prove you are who you claim to be ? The state countered that pretty good giving the example of that would not work buying alcohol , you can't just facetime with the store and have them deliver you beer there still needs to be a face to face check on that .
Click to expand...
Same question, though: "Why?" Why can't you facetime to the local grog shop, have your face matched to your ID, and have a case of beer sent over to your stupidbowl party? The stat'e answer isn't an answer; it seems to me a lot like, "Because I'm the mommy and I said so."
 
Same question, though: "Why?" Why can't you facetime to the local grog shop, have your face matched to your ID, and have a case of beer sent over to your stupidbowl party? The state answer isn't an answer; it seems to me a lot like, "Because I'm the mommy and I said so."
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell it's a valid argument . Yes you can have beer and wine delivered to your home but you still must show ID to take possession so in all intensive purposes it's a face to face transaction . throw in a background check and it gets even a little more difficult . Don't get me wrong , I like the idea but I do see the states point .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top