OT- NO SALES TO CA!!!

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:25 pm

This statement, and others similar, really chap my butt. What in Sam Hill is wrong with these IDIOTS, and I do mean IDIOTS!!?? Such foolish statements only serve to demonstrate their complete lack of knowledge concerning state laws, as well as loss of sales. Lately, there have been a couple of Winchesters that I surely would have bid on and probably would have purchased outright had the sellers had any common sense whatsoever. I tried to talk to one of them, but his head is so far up his butt that I couldn't understand his voice, let alone his "logic". Too bad for him and me. I had to get this rant off my feeble mind before I forgot about it.

scr83jp · Post by **scr83jp** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:51 pm

I was in a gun shop in Pennsylvania in Dec 08 and informed the owner I was from CA,he told me info I already knew that I couldn't buy a gun from him but he said he rec'd a notice from CA DOJ asking if he'd like to join the CA approved list of gun dealers so he could sell to CA residents & transfer to another ffl.He wasn't sure whether he'd fill out the app.CA has Jerry Brown as the Atty General who never has been a friend of gun owners and he just switched his position on Prop 8 to against now that the election is over,he wants to be the gov again I still have bad memories how messed up CA was under him and his appointees!

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:03 pm

I thought regulating interstate commerce was the purview of the Feds. Anyway, I believe it was the California dealers that pushed the regulations that are causing sellers outside of California to balk. Apparently, they wanted to restrict the size of their market's supply ... and it seems they are getting their wish. It looks like many sellers are not willing to "register" to be able to ship into the state ... though I'm not sure of the terminology or particulars, you can certainly see the effects up on GunBroker.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:10 pm

Rimfire McNutjob wrote:I thought regulating interstate commerce was the purview of the Feds. Anyway, I believe it was the California dealers that pushed the regulations that are causing sellers outside of California to balk. Apparently, they wanted to restrict the size of their market's supply ... and it seems they are getting their wish. It looks like many sellers are not willing to "register" to be able to ship into the state ... though I'm not sure of the terminology or particulars, you can certainly see the effects up on GunBroker.

That's just so much Bull S---. Our dealers fought the CA DOJ Regs concerning this and our local dealers in NORCAL are basically irritated that it was put in place.

Just like Mike D said, it has precluded buys of many many nice no longer made firearms. One of the problems with the regs is that they are worded so awkwardly and some individuals and FFLs don't want to take the chance of screwing up.

I feel for ya Mike. I ran across a rifle in Las Vegas, NV not long ago that I wanted (Pre-64 Winchester Model 70 .30-06) and the dealer would not ship to my local gunshop.

EDIT:

"Rimfire" - Not meaning to come down on you hard or negatively but I get so danged tired of non-CA folks putting out background on CA regs that just aren't so and danged tired of non-CA folks knocking CA about our firearm laws/regs (which you didn't do). We may have waiting periods, etc. here in CA but we actually have more firearm freedom than many of the other states. Anyway, wasn't trying to insult you -- I like 99.9% of your posts and have learned much from you.

meanc · Post by **meanc** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:12 pm

Mike,

I hear ya and certainly understand, but it's not the seller's fault.

The grand ol' republic of California has regulated it's citizens out of the realm of reality.

That's why I no longer live there. The only reason for my 15yr stay prior was my daughter.

And even she had the good sense to move here to Florida a couple of years ago.

meanc · Post by **meanc** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:22 pm

BTW,

I was out there a year ago visiting in Orange County, went to a couple of gun shops to browse around. Saw a Winchester and a Marlin I wanted.

Decided I'd get both and the owner said he'd ship both to my FFL.

We started the paperwork and he did his calculations.

The total came out to $200 more than we discussed. I asked him what in the He** happened.

$100 SHIPPING.... EACH!!!!!

I kindly told him he could keep them.

So, if some of you think all your local gun shop owners are all in a tissy over this, think again.

They were major proponents of the bill.

KCSO · Post by **KCSO** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:25 pm

Why bother in a couple years you guys won't have guns anyway, and with the lead ban you won't be able to shoot if you did have them.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:47 pm

Can an individual send a firearm to an FFL in CA from outside CA?

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm

Modoc ED wrote: EDIT:

"Rimfire" - Not meaning to come down on you hard or negatively but I get so danged tired of non-CA folks putting out background on CA regs that just aren't so and danged tired of non-CA folks knocking CA about our firearm laws/regs (which you didn't do). We may have waiting periods, etc. here in CA but we actually have more firearm freedom than many of the other states. Anyway, wasn't trying to insult you -- I like 99.9% of your posts and have learned much from you.

I based my statement on something I found about the NRA being told it was an "industry bill" which was supposed to be code for "do not oppose". I've not been exposed to the system other that what I've read about it and it seems to me to not be a significant burden ... but you know how some people are and apparently some people are taking a stand against it from outside of the state. It's a shame, because from what I've seen on GunBroker it can really limit what's available to California buyers. There are just a pile of listings that state "no sales to California" on items that I search.

Of course, we outsiders also like to stay abreast of what's going on in California because many of the laws and regulations that originate out there end up propagating to other states. But, I'm so far from California that I certainly don't get any firsthand information ... just what I read in various national postings and from a few of the more popular California based web sites.

Honestly, I'm not sure what many of the California regs say about rifles and handguns. This is the only one I've really read anything about because it seemed to have impact outside of California ... which is obviously a bit unusual. I do know that a guy apparently got in trouble the other day for driving outside LAX with "too many guns" and a few loaded magazines. The "too many guns" is clearly media spin (I hope) but the loaded magazines must be a California regulation. Again, I'm unaware of how you're allowed to transport guns in your state. If he lives there, he should have known though.

Does anyone know what the original purpose of the "registering to ship to Cal FFLs" regulation was supposed to do for the state? Is it about making sure that only FFLs can ship into CA? Was it about stopping illegal guns or something? It definitely seems to be slowing the sales and/or availability of legal ones.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:51 pm

meanc wrote:BTW,

I was out there a year ago visiting in Orange County, went to a couple of gun shops to browse around. Saw a Winchester and a Marlin I wanted.

Decided I'd get both and the owner said he'd ship both to my FFL.

We started the paperwork and he did his calculations.

The total came out to $200 more than we discussed. I asked him what in the He** happened.

$100 SHIPPING.... EACH!!!!!

I kindly told him he could keep them.

So, if some of you think all your local gun shop owners are all in a tissy over this, think again.

They were major proponents of the bill. No, they were not!!

This is a case of a CA dealer sending a firearm OUT of CA and ripping you off on the shipping charges. You deal had nothing to do with importing firearms INTO CA.

edwardyoung · Post by **edwardyoung** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:02 pm

What does a non-Californian have to do to transfer a gun into CA, now? Is it not the big pain it is being hyped as? Thanks

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:07 pm

Tycer wrote:Can an individual send a firearm to an FFL in CA from outside CA?

I answered my own question.
The answer is yes. A non-FFL holder does not need to obtain a Firearms Shipment Approval number.

If I were an FFL:
I am an FFL dealer. How do I ship/transfer a firearm to a California FFL? What is the procedure?
In order to enroll in the CFLC Program, go to the CFLC Program website or visit the CADOJ Bureau of Firearms website for additional information. Once enrolled, you may access the CFLC database 24 hours, 7 days a week. This will allow you to log in with your user ID and password to obtain Firearms Shipment Approval numbers. When you obtain a Firearms Shipment Approval number for a firearm shipment, you need to provide the Firearms Shipment Approval number to the receiving California FFL and keep a copy of it for your records.

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:16 pm

So Tycer, private persons may ship into CA FFLs without registering? But FFLs and C&Rs need to register?

I haven't paid much attention on GunBroker to notice if the sellers that post the "No Sales to CA" are really FFL dealers or individuals. I'm guessing that many individuals are confused about whether the regs apply to them.

Not that I have a dog in this particular hunt ... I have a mental problem that keeps me from parting with firearms that I have acquired so I am unlikely to be shipping anything to California under these regs. But like I said earlier, things have a way of starting out in California and being adopted by other states. And we should keep tabs on what goes on out there and support our fellow gun owners in whichever state they may reside.

meanc · Post by **meanc** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:25 pm

This is a case of a CA dealer sending a firearm OUT of CA and ripping you off on the shipping charges. Your deal had nothing to do with importing firearms INTO CA.

You're right, but this one deal as well as the many others I participated in while living in California from 1988 - 2004, is a prime example of the lengths a lot of California gun dealers go to in order to make as much money as they possibly can.

This new FFL regulation coupled with outrageously high xfer fees, are more tools that help them keep sales local and charge local customers an arm and a leg above what can be found online cheaper.

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:00 pm

Tycer wrote:Can an individual send a firearm to an FFL in CA from outside CA?

ABSOLUTELY. You can also send firearms, excepting handguns, to individuals that have C&R licenses. There are NO CA laws that prevent individuals from sending guns to FFL holders in CA. If anyone tells you this, they have no knowledge of CA laws.

Incidently, the person whom I had the conversation with has a nice 1895 Winchester and lives in PA. He is a hard headed fool who should not be in the business of selling firearms. His emotional state is such that I would not buy a gun from him, period.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:26 pm

Rimfire McNutjob wrote:So Tycer, private persons may ship into CA FFLs without registering? But FFLs and C&Rs need to register?

Yes.

My local FFL holder will not register (small town pawnshop) and some CA FFL holders will not accept firearms from an individual.
Imagine the frustration in selling a gun online, getting and cashing the check, and then finding out their FFL won't take shipment. Refund the money and relist online and pay the fees twice. Ooooo. Fun.

I suppose I could just put the disclaimer that I'll withhold $xx.xx for my fees, time, and trouble if the buyer finds they can't receive from an individual after purchasing.

There's a whole bunch of other states that don't give that kind of indigestion.

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:11 pm

I don't really care that these guys are "afraid" to ship a gun to CA, not even to a C&R holder. Any dealer worth his, or her, salt knows and undeerstands simple state statutes, laws and requirements regarding firearms transfers and to whom they may be sent. Conversely, any CA dealer who charges $100 each to ship a gun to another FFL is also guilty of overcharging his customers and should be reported to the ATF. No dealer should be allowed to gouge anyone, regardless of their resident state. The entire situation disgusts me.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:22 pm

As for the guy that got arrested at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport), in the end he had actually not violated any laws but he was stupid to drive into an airport with security checks with so many guns as he had and as much ammo as he had.

The basic law in CA is that you can not transport a firearm with any ammo attached to it in any way (in a clip, magazine, ammo holder on the stock, chambner etc.) in an "Incorporated City" in a vehicle. You can transport a firearm in a rifle case with ammo in the same case as long as the ammo isn't attached anyway to the firearm. NOW, you CAN transport a firearm with no ammo in the chamber but with ammo attached (say in the magazine) to the firearm in a "non-Incorporated City" in a vehicle. This would come into play while hunting and transporting your rifle in your truck from one hunting area to another while the magazine is loaded as long as there is no ammo in the chamber.

All this stuff is too complicated to go into here on a forum AND is just one reason that you (meaning everyone) should keep up on your states firearm and hunting laws/regulations.

Hell, I have to keep current not only with CA laws/regulations but also NV and OR as I have hunting licences in those states too.

EDIT:

Anyway, the guy that got arrested at LAX has been let go along with all his firearms and ammo as none of the ammo had been attached to any of the firearms and all firearms had been locked away in cases/boxes. His only crime (stupidity actually) was driving into a secure area subject to search with a truck load of guns and ammo in great quantity. He was on the way to a gun show and was picking up a friend at the airport to go with him.

northwoods · Post by **northwoods** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:12 pm

Well, I stay confused. If a Calif. FFL dealer will accept from a non FFL holder in another state you may ship to Calif. Please answer yes or no.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:22 pm

northwoods wrote:Well, I stay confused. If a Calif. FFL dealer will accept from a non FFL holder in another state you may ship to Calif. Please answer yes or no.

A non-FFL/non-CR holder (meaning private individual) from outside of CA can ship a firearm to a FFL/CR licensed individual in CA.

If you (meaning "northwoods") live in Colorado and have a rifle that you want to sell to me, you can box it up and ship it to my local gunshop who is a FFL holder and then he can transfer the rifle to me. I can do the reverse also. Box up a rifle and send it to your local gunshop/FFL who will then transfer it to you.

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:30 pm

Can, yes, will, not necessarily. The reality of it is that it IS legal to ship your gun to a CA FFL, but whether, or not, he will accept it is up to him. Too many dealers are fearful of the ATF and their sometimes questionable tactics, but I have experienced NO difficulties with them. They have actually gone out of their way to assist me on occasion.

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:31 pm

Can, yes, will, not necessarily. The reality of it is that it IS legal to ship your gun to a CA FFL, but whether, or not, he will accept it is up to him. Too many dealers are fearful of the ATF and their sometimes questionable tactics, but I have experienced NO difficulties with them. They have actually gone out of their way to assist me on occasion.

1886 · Post by **1886** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:32 pm

The sellers think they are punishing the state. They are only serving the state's desire to curb gun sales. In reality they only punish the potential buyers. 1886.

jazman · Post by **jazman** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:49 pm

1886 wrote:The sellers think they are punishing the state. They are only serving the state's desire to curb gun sales. In reality they only punish the potential buyers. 1886.

This is correct. The sellers think they are punishing the state, while in reality they are punishing us gun owners in the state. By doing this they are actually supporting the laws passed and encouraging other states to follow California's lead. The way to protest this is to make MORE sales to California gun owners and buyers, not less. They are also shutting off quite a number of buyers for their products.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:51 pm

I feel sorry for you guys in Ca., but if I had to put up with politicians who force fed me this kind of baloney, I'd sell everything and move to another state.

71fan · Post by **71fan** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:12 pm

Chaps my hide too. I want to yell at everyone playing into this scheme. It is so frustrating, like Mike said, to find a rifle you want, read through the description, and then see "No CA Sales, period." What a load of .......

The good news is I'm seeing more and more "will sell to CA" on GB and I have actually called and thanked one of them, as I was paying for my new/old 1894 that I just bought

I think most sellers are reasonable and once the initial ingorance wears off most will come around. I hope.

66GTO · Post by **66GTO** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:29 pm

Slightly off topic, but in a year nobody may be able to ship anything, not just guns, to or from California. CARB just approved a new restriction on diesel trucks requiring all of them to:

1. Be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters starting in 2010, with nearly all vehicles upgraded by 2014.
2. Engines older than the 2010 equivalent must be replaced according to a phase-in implementation schedule from 2012 to 2022.
3. Long haul truckers must install fuel efficient tires and aerodynamic devices on their trailers that lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy.

The kick in the gut on this one is the new rules would cover any trucks weighing more than 14,000 pounds that travel through California, no matter where they are registered. So California has just effectively prohibited all interstate transportation by truck unless every trucker in the U.S., Mexico, or Canada that travels through California complies with the new regs. If I'm a long haul trucker, I boycott California. God have mercy on the ones who live and work there.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... 2527.story

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:41 pm

marlinman93 wrote:I feel sorry for you guys in Ca., but if I had to put up with politicians who force fed me this kind of baloney, I'd sell everything and move to another state.

Marlinman,
You could not have said that any better.

Let all the whiteys move out and leave the entire state to the parasites. Then watch 'em all drown, starve and kill each other off. Wait about 5 years and move back. One thing in life that I have no tolerence for is aggravation caused by the inability of certain groups of people who have no self-discipline which, by the way, is the cause of aggravating laws.

Yea mon, we gets to cap yo head and play r gangsta rap.

cas · Post by **cas** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:15 pm

I feel for you.. we get this kind of BS in New York all the time. There are countless companies that won't send firearms and magazines to NY, even though they are 100% legal.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:45 pm

Modoc ED wrote:As for the guy that got arrested at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport),...........................snip

EDIT:

Anyway, the guy that got arrested at LAX has been let go along with all his firearms and ammo as none of the ammo had been attached to any of the firearms and all firearms had been locked away in cases/boxes. His only crime (stupidity actually) was driving into a secure area subject to search with a truck load of guns and ammo in great quantity. He was on the way to a gun show and was picking up a friend at the airport to go with him.

Ed, do you have a source for that. I looked around but couldn't locate anything.

To the subject. I signed up to ship to Cal. The DOJ paper work is not that big a deal if everything goes well. But so far I have had two that just took too much time in phone calls and emails just trying to get the right info from the Cal FFL and customer to even start the DOJ CL paper work. That has to be factored in. For the time being I charge a $5 process fee for the Cal. DOJ paperwork.
My hope is eventually everyone will figure out what needs to be done in order to make it a consistently smooth process. In the meantime I just can't do it for free.
For you California folks that find a gun that you just can't do without just have it transferred to me and I'll transfer it on to your FFL. I'll do it as a normal transfer $25, Cal DOJ paper work $5 and $30 S&H for one gun, $60 total.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:03 am

When our forefathers got fed up with their government, they moved.

Because of its socialist government, the state of California should be either removed from the union or conquered (the old-fashioned way).
In the meanwhile, we should avoid the place. Maybe it will dry up and crumble like a stale piece of bread.
And when the socialist politicians and starving condors cross its borders in search of food, they should be picked off with bullets cast from pure lead and micro-inscribed with the entire United States Constitution and fired from fully automatic rifles capable of delivering 7 million rounds per minute from 700 billion-round clips.
Then, after the land has been declared "toxin-free", it will be handed over to The Constitution Party.
And the state bird will be the one you and I can form by making a fist and extending the middle finger.

Other than that, I like California.

bogie

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:08 am

66GTO: if memory serves me, CARB tried the same thing 'bout 12-15 years w/ the rail roads. For some reason, the idea, rulemaking, or whatever went belly up.

& too make matters worse, CAB will set its sights on oceanic shippers & cruise ships, & the railroads. Going to be interesting. If this does come to pass, CA will be in-a-world-of-hurt very quickly.

I hope the trucking industry, railroads, oceanic shippers, etc., join ranks & say: "OK you have your rule making, but we ain't goanna ship inside of CA. You want it? Come & get it @ a OR, NV, AZ, or Mexican terminal."

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:12 am

marlinman93 wrote:I feel sorry for you guys in Ca., but if I had to put up with politicians who force fed me this kind of baloney, I'd sell everything and move to another state.

Does that mean you plan to leave the country if...er... we have a Prez who plans to do the same thing?? It seems to me that we are all in on this thing together, and that every state is having gun rights eroded, one by one.

44LVR · Post by **44LVR** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:30 am

Bogie35 wrote: And the state bird will be the one you and I can form by making a fist and extending the middle finger.

Oh MY! I LIKE your flag! Perhaps someone ought to make something like that up for every state, directed toward the Leftist leaders?

I bet it would sell

44

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:45 am

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:
Modoc ED wrote:As for the guy that got arrested at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport),...........................snip

EDIT:

Anyway, the guy that got arrested at LAX has been let go along with all his firearms and ammo as none of the ammo had been attached to any of the firearms and all firearms had been locked away in cases/boxes. His only crime (stupidity actually) was driving into a secure area subject to search with a truck load of guns and ammo in great quantity. He was on the way to a gun show and was picking up a friend at the airport to go with him.

Ed, do you have a source for that. I looked around but couldn't locate anything.

It was on the NBC News in Los Angeles. They had an interview with the guy after he was released. The whole item only took about three minutes.

Funny thing was that the night the guy was arrested, the cops said that he was legal as far as transporting the guns and ammo the way he was doing it. What got him arrested was taking the guns and ammo into LAX which is a secure area where no guns are allowed.

It really was a stupid move on the guys part. LAX is over-the-top as far as security is concerned. He should have known better.

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:38 am

marlinman93 wrote:I feel sorry for you guys in Ca., but if I had to put up with politicians who force fed me this kind of baloney, I'd sell everything and move to another state.

Not to worry, Vall, what happens in CA will soon follow in OR. After all, it IS run by escaped CA Dems, ain't it?

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:30 pm

Modoc ED wrote:
Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:
Modoc ED wrote:As for the guy that got arrested at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport),...........................snip

EDIT:

Anyway, the guy that got arrested at LAX has been let go along with all his firearms and ammo as none of the ammo had been attached to any of the firearms and all firearms had been locked away in cases/boxes. His only crime (stupidity actually) was driving into a secure area subject to search with a truck load of guns and ammo in great quantity. He was on the way to a gun show and was picking up a friend at the airport to go with him.

Ed, do you have a source for that. I looked around but couldn't locate anything.
It was on the NBC News in Los Angeles. They had an interview with the guy after he was released. The whole item only took about three minutes.

Funny thing was that the night the guy was arrested, the cops said that he was legal as far as transporting the guns and ammo the way he was doing it. What got him arrested was taking the guns and ammo into LAX which is a secure area where no guns are allowed.

It really was a stupid move on the guys part. LAX is over-the-top as far as security is concerned. He should have known better.

LAX must have a different secured area policy than TSA's. It's my understanding, other airport's secure ares are those area's past the TSA. If LAX has a different policy how would a person fly out of LAX with guns. It sounds like the way he had them packaged, depending on the amount of ammo he had, they could have been checked with his luggage. The reason I ask is it is not unusual for CAS shooters to do just that and if it's a man and his wife 21 guns wouldn't be unusual.

My point is that may be stupid at LAX but not that unusual elswhere.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:15 pm

Any municipality can set up any security measure they want around an airport that is in their jurisdiction in spite of what the TSA has set up.

I'd bet that if a guy was making his way into the airport at Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX with a pick-up truck bed full of rifles and ammunition and was stopped by the local police for a security check that he'd be in a relative tight spot for at least a little while.

Common sense -- it just boils down to common sense.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:49 pm

Modoc ED wrote:Any municipality can set up any security measure they want around an airport that is in their jurisdiction in spite of what the TSA has set up.
I'd bet that if a guy was making his way into the airport at Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX with a pick-up truck bed full of rifles and ammunition and was stopped by the local police for a security check that he'd be in a relative tight spot for at least a little while.

Common sense -- it just boils down to common sense.

That maybe California common sense but Texas State has preemption laws to forbid municpalities from making such gun laws. People fly in and out of Texas Airports with guns all the time. You check them in and out with your luggage. I know this because I've done it myself.

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:06 pm

Nate, it's just as easy to do here in CA, too. I have flown a few times with firearms in baggage and have not encountered any problems. The fellow at LAX should have had the sense to save himself some temporary grief by leaving his guns at home. Now that his name is public, he will be susceptible to thieves, for darned sure. I hope that everything he owns, firearms wise, is correctly locked up.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:13 pm

Mike D. wrote:Nate, it's just as easy to do here in CA, too. I have flown a few times with firearms in baggage and have not encountered any problems. The fellow at LAX should have had the sense to save himself some temporary grief by leaving his guns at home. Now that his name is public, he will be susceptible to thieves, for darned sure. I hope that everything he owns, firearms wise, is correctly locked up.

I'm not gettin something here. Are you saying, if he was flying in or out with those guns he wouldn't have a problem but because he was picking someone up from the same place that someone that was flying in or out of would be picked up from, that he is now in trouble? If that's the case, it doesn't make any sense to me, common or otherwise.

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:17 pm

Modoc ED wrote:Any municipality can set up any security measure they want around an airport that is in their jurisdiction in spite of what the TSA has set up.

I'd bet that if a guy was making his way into the airport at Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX with a pick-up truck bed full of rifles and ammunition and was stopped by the local police for a security check that he'd be in a relative tight spot for at least a little while.

Common sense -- it just boils down to common sense.

I believe there is a suit in Georgia over this very type of issue. The authority at Hartsfield Airport has setup more restrictive rules about firearms and they are being challenged by GeorgiaCarry.org based on a recent state law.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:23 pm

Rimfire McNutjob wrote:
Modoc ED wrote:Any municipality can set up any security measure they want around an airport that is in their jurisdiction in spite of what the TSA has set up.

I'd bet that if a guy was making his way into the airport at Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX with a pick-up truck bed full of rifles and ammunition and was stopped by the local police for a security check that he'd be in a relative tight spot for at least a little while.

Common sense -- it just boils down to common sense.
I believe there is a suit in Georgia over this very type of issue. The authority at Hartsfield Airport has setup more restrictive rules about firearms and they are being challenged by GeorgiaCarry.org based on a recent state law.

yep, I saw that one too. IIRC Georgia has that preemption law too and that is what GeorgiaCarry.org based their action on.

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:24 pm

Mike D., I wanted to apologize for the dismissive tone in my original post to your issue yesterday. I wasn't exactly supportive over an issue that has caused you and other firearms owners in California a good deal of trouble through no fault of your own. Having re-read it today, I could have done better and at least done more research as many posters have since done on the thread. I assigned some of the blame to California dealers but the truth is that there were probably dealers that fell on both sides of the issue. I'd be curious to see what particular special interest groups pushed for a got this legislation through the pipe. I'm not sure of the original intent, but we are certainly seeing first hand the effects of the requirement.