Feedback Open New box on CA DROS for handgun PPT

[acuracing]

Interesting because I know there are many that obtained off-roster pistols by means of 'SSE 2.0'. Does that qualify as an exemption among non-LEO? Will be curious to see how/if this pans out as I will likely be selling something within that category within the upcoming months.

Also hilarious is the egregious typo "empemption" in the dropdown.

 

[bamer02]

Did a PPT yesterday and it was the shop's first encounter with this new NON-ROSTER OBTAINED VIA EXEMPTION question.

Initially, answered NO. But brainstormed with staff and other customers. Decided and agreed to change to YES (exempt via PPT). Seems like a trick question.

Shop also mentioned being audited a few days ago by DOJ. They felt like they are tracking more of LE purchases/transactions.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Probably has to do with this, there are now reporting requirements for LE when they sell off roster handguns:

Regulations: Notice of Law Enforcement Sales/Transfers of Unsafe Handguns

Summary: Assembly Bill (AB) 2699 (stats. 2020, ch. 289) expanded exemptions to the prohibition against the sale, use, purchase, or transfer of unsafe handguns. The new exemptions include additional law enforcement and government entities, as well as sworn members of those entities. Penal Code...

oag.ca.gov

 

[Scubabugdiver]

Could this be the closing of the loophole? I.E the beginning of the end? It seems like this is just pressure being applied to LE. Could be a case of one bad apple spoiled the whole bunch? In other words, a small population took advantage of the system, and now is ruining it for everybody else. I’m definitely no expert, but if I had to venture a guest, I’d say most off roster handguns that make it out into the “free world “are probably coming from LE. Its been interesting to see how many GEN six Glocks popped up in the classified shortly after they made it to market here in California. If this is the beginning of the end, this could make off-roster handguns skyrocket in price until the loophole is finally closed. Let’s hope not.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Could this be the closing of the loophole? I.E the beginning of the end? It seems like this is just pressure being applied to LE. Could be a case of one bad apple spoiled the whole bunch? In other words, a small population took advantage of the system, and now is ruining it for everybody else. I’m definitely no expert, but if I had to venture a guest, I’d say most off roster handguns that make it out into the “free world “are probably coming from LE. Its been interesting to see how many GEN six Glocks popped up in the classified shortly after they made it to market here in California. If this is the beginning of the end, this could make off-roster handguns skyrocket in price until the loophole is finally closed. Let’s hope not.

As far as I can tell it's just reporting requirements (for now). I guess if you actually believe that off roster guns are "unsafe" this would makes sense, but if they are unsafe why would you have an exception for the group of people that carries a firearm in public more than anyone else?

 

[Scubabugdiver]

I’m also reading that there was a proposal to require LE to report to the Department of justice in writing within 72 hours when they sell an off roster gun to non exempt buyer. It looks like it was open for a debate until the end of February. Of course, in California, anything that’s going to restrict gun ownership is never up for debate. I would suspect that this requirement will take effect soon. And if that’s the case, LE might be thinking twice about selling their off roster firearms. Just my two cents.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I’m also reading that there was a proposal to require LE to report to the Department of justice in writing within 72 hours when they sell an off roster gun to non exempt buyer. It looks like it was open for a debate until the end of February. Of course, in California, anything that’s going to restrict gun ownership is never up for debate. I would suspect that this requirement will take effect soon. And if that’s the case, LE might be thinking twice about selling their off roster firearms. Just my two cents.

what "rulemaking" is is after the law has passed the state can then write regulations that are more specific about how to comply. The difference between Laws and Regulations. The only thing up for debate is the text of the regulation. If you could find that the text doesn't conform to the law that passed the legislature then that's what you can debate but just objecting to the law itself would just be thrown in the trash with prejudice. I am keeping an eye out for AB1263 rulemaking though because we need more clarification on what exactly a "firearm accessory" is so if they write regulations and it's still just as vague it would be a great time for bunch of us and especially FFLs and retailers to submit comments. They don't always do rulemaking but I feel like they will with this, but they seem to be several years behind. Notice that rulemaking I posted above was for a bill that passed in 2020 lol.

 

[BONECUTR]

Note for FFL's on this.
Currently the DES system will not allow you to make a correction on these DROS's.
I have one started before the update and now it tells me I can't make the correction (model typo) because the On/Off Roster question is not answered. (Was not there when the DROS was started and no option to select it now.

Fun stuff. CADOJ doesn't know when this will be fixed.

 

[Cagun_member]

I completed a couple of PPTs approximately eleven days ago. One was submitted electronically, while the other was a physical paper form. Both utilized the older version of the form.

 

[weaverftw]

Note for FFL's on this.
Currently the DES system will not allow you to make a correction on these DROS's.
I have one started before the update and now it tells me I can't make the correction (model typo) because the On/Off Roster question is not answered. (Was not there when the DROS was started and no option to select it now.

Fun stuff. CADOJ doesn't know when this will be fixed.

Do you know when it came into the form? I dros’d an off roster on 3/20, I don’t know if they got the question or not. Hoping to pick up Monday; I’ll be pissed if it’s denied because the question was created after we did it and have to redo everything (or is there a chance I won’t even be able to do it at all?)

 

[BONECUTR]

Do you know when it came into the form? I dros’d an off roster on 3/20, I don’t know if they got the question or not. Hoping to pick up Monday; I’ll be pissed if it’s denied because the question was created after we did it and have to redo everything (or is there a chance I won’t even be able to do it at all?)

Just happened about 3 days ago. Your DROS will be fine unless they need to make a correction.

 

[westsidearms]

So I just ran my first on a Glock 21 SF. So we answered it was non-roster and no it was not obtained via an exemption. When it was DROSed, it was on the roster so no exemption was required. The best part was when I called the DOJ and asked and they said we just ask the question of the seller. Who in the eff is going to know what PC 32000 is? Even better they said if the person answers it wrong and you figure it out afterwards, cancel DROS and re-DROS. I really, really hate this state. For $37.19 per transaction, we should not have to cancel a damn thing and everything should be editable. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[lactoast]

As far as I can tell it's just reporting requirements (for now). I guess if you actually believe that off roster guns are "unsafe" this would makes sense, but if they are unsafe why would you have an exception for the group of people that carries a firearm in public more than anyone else?

If it was truly unsafe, I’d imagine the state would also bar new residents from bringing their non roster handguns when they move. New residents already need to comply with the 10-round magazines and assault weapon features, after all.

My fantasy had been that LE would be subjected to the same roster limitations we are, not to restrict them but to highlight the absurdity of what you’ve pointed out with off rosters being “unsafe.” This is more like a monkey’s paw situation

 

[XxwoodshunterxX]

i think they are wanting to keep track of how many are on roster and off roster is all, not that they couldnt just look that up on the backend they are just making more problmes for ffls

 

[DB>)>]

It is for the "exemptions" that are listed in pc32000 for certain government employees that are NOT law enforcement, allowing them to buy, but NOT SELL off roster firearms to non-exempt private parties. LEO can both buy AND sell. Picked up some nice off rosters from LEO, and subsequently sold some of them, all legal transfers.

The new "box" is extrememly poorly worded and quite confusing, and apparently designed for those in the "special" categories to self identify as breaking the law by selling an off roster they acquired via the exemption and later attempting to sell it to a NON-exempt individual...

 

[weaverftw]

It is for the "exemptions" that are listed in pc32000 for certain government employees that are NOT law enforcement, allowing them to buy, but NOT SELL off roster firearms to non-exempt private parties. LEO can both buy AND sell. Picked up some nice off rosters from LEO, and subsequently sold some of them, all legal transfers.

The new "box" is extrememly poorly worded and quite confusing, and apparently designed for those in the "special" categories to self identify as breaking the law by selling an off roster they acquired via the exemption and later attempting to sell it to a NON-exempt individual...

I think it’s pretty clearly also intended to keep track of exempt LEO who can legally sell to non-exempt individuals but can’t run a business doing so. Folks have deduced they’re probably trying to crack down on this and the questions help them identify LEO who are using it as a side hustle and have 25/50/100/etc PPTs a year. A LEO at the range told me someone in his dept got in trouble recently for this

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Do you know when it came into the form? I dros’d an off roster on 3/20, I don’t know if they got the question or not. Hoping to pick up Monday; I’ll be pissed if it’s denied because the question was created after we did it and have to redo everything (or is there a chance I won’t even be able to do it at all?)

Did the DROS on 3/20 submit itself before you hit send?

 

[weaverftw]

Did the DROS on 3/20 submit itself before you hit send?

I, as the buyer, did not get this question. I’m not an FFL so I don’t know what questions are asked of the seller or what questions the FFL themselves might have to answer outside of what I see. The FFL I go to uses a computer portal to have the buyer only complete their portion of the DROS and the seller completes a separate set of screens. I assume it’s all compiled into the official form(s) to submit to DOJ but that’s behind the counter and I don’t see it, so I was wondering if the question might’ve been asked of the seller/FFL.

I picked up the DWXc no issues on day 10 and didn’t bother to check if the question was on the approved form or not; I got my gun so I’m happy.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I, as the buyer, did not get this question. I’m not an FFL so I don’t know what questions are asked of the seller or what questions the FFL themselves might have to answer outside of what I see. The FFL I go to uses a computer portal to have the buyer only complete their portion of the DROS and the seller completes a separate set of screens. I assume it’s all compiled into the official form(s) to submit to DOJ but that’s behind the counter and I don’t see it, so I was wondering if the question might’ve been asked of the seller/FFL.

I picked up the DWXc no issues on day 10 and didn’t bother to check if the question was on the approved form or not; I got my gun so I’m happy.

My comment was a silly P320 joke.

 

[weaverftw]

My comment was a silly P320 joke.

LOL went right over my head, I thought you were being snarky. It’s a solid joke