Feedback We MIGHT Have An Opportunity To Influence DROS' Replacement

[gorgothmog]

Every year we eat legislative sandwiches because our law making is outsourced to billionaire interest groups like Everytown. These laws are designed to be vague, overbroad, and in the spirit of bad governance. AB 1263 is the latest sandwich we are all munching on, and no one has a good way to find compliance safe harbors, and therefore we see vendors exiting the market until they are defined through litigation or agency clarification. However, I did stumble upon something very interesting... an IT project that the Cal DoJ is hiring for right now. They want to find a modern replacement for DROS, and their infrastructure out of the Stone Age. Here is the proposal, I believe:

https://bcp.dof.ca.gov/2526/FY2526_ORG0820_BCP7733.pdf

With that said, now is the time to band together to demand a regulatory framework with actual governance in mind. We can create a regulatory framework that works. We just need to gather enough voices to make that happen. There is so much that a working system like this could fix for us. It could drown out organizations like Everytown with laws that are objective and easily followed for compliance reasons. It can create a tiered licensing system with licensing statutes that already exist on the books. It's complicated, and I have a ton of ideas, but the window is literally NOW! You can either sit on the sidelines, or become a part of the conversation. Talk to your LGS, compliance departments, anybody that knows anything...

 

[Hit Factor]

You can either sit on the sidelines, or become a part of the conversation.

It sounds like an opportunity to acquiesce in, and even help facilitate, the continued infringement of our natural right to protect and defend ourselves and our loved ones, and our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

 

[MattB]

I’d rather we put our effort into lawsuits. DROS is unconstitutional garbage that should be struck down in court. No registration, no waiting periods, no infringement.

 

[Deleted member 6005]

Did you really need another thread in this?

 

[gorgothmog]

It sounds like an opportunity to acquiesce in, and even help facilitate, the continued infringement of our natural right to protect and defend ourselves and our loved ones, and our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

View attachment 130006

I'm not disagreeing with you, and the meme is fitting in certain respects, but I'm also a sober realist when it comes to California gun law and the performative politics behind it. If you read the document I linked, the California DoJ, specifically the Bureau of Firearms is OPENLY ADMITTING DEFEAT. They say the systems are too old to effectively report real time data that can keep guns out of the hands of people that are prohibited, and that new legislative mandates like raising the age of eligibility pose titanic amounts of implementation efforts. The document itself is something the CRPA can effectively use in court to argue for a preliminary injunction for AB 1263 when it goes in front of a trial judge.

Seriously, either Every Town is the only stakeholder and uses something far more lethal than DROS on what's left of your rights, or you participate by demanding actual good governance, which the Cal DoJ has clearly stated it cannot do by itself.

 

[gorgothmog]

I’d rather we put our effort into lawsuits. DROS is unconstitutional garbage that should be struck down in court. No registration, no waiting periods, no infringement.

I'm not discouraging that! The document I linked is the cornerstone for a preliminary injunction against something like AB 1263. Seriously, you guys need to watch Washington Gun Law, 4 Boxes Diner, or something else that will actually educate you on something other than yelling "Shall not be infringed" which I concede is an insurmountable clause, in all respects... but here we are.

 

[ef9boy88]

I could be wrong, but this seems like them asking for help building a system to support background checks on EVERYTHING and not any kind of beneficial changes to the system.
Almost like history repeating itself. Remember when they suggested that all PPTs going through FFLs would benefit FFLs and brought the FFLs in to support that?

 

[gorgothmog]

I could be wrong, but this seems like them asking for help building a system to support background checks on EVERYTHING and not any kind of beneficial changes to the system.
Almost like history repeating itself. Remember when they suggested that all PPTs going through FFLs would benefit FFLs and brought the FFLs in to support that?

This is just one great example of information that needs to be talked about. Seriously, you've contributed 10 times more by mentioning this than some of the ideological back and forths I've wasted time on. This is the space that needs attention. Cede to Every Town, or make sure your input gets implemented. Those are the choices, and if you drop those kinds of ideas in here, I can move on the best ones.