Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

California Declares War on FFLs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    California Declares War on FFLs

    California Declares War on FFLs


    A bill in the California State Legislature will place many new, onerous restrictions on FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees). The bill, Assembly Bill 2459, was introduced by California Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) and was cosponsored by The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a far-left anti-gun rights organization.

    The bill will place four new restrictions if passed:

    A prohibition on licensee business premises being on a residential property.
    Nearly half of the FFLs in California are residential-based. Ammoland.com did an article back in 2013 that determined 49% of the FFLs in California were residential-based. Interestingly, only five states had less than 50% residential-based FFLs.

    A clear statement that localities may impose more restrictive requirements on licensees than those imposed by state law.
    This restriction opens the door for local municipalities to drive FFLs out of business by legislative fiat. Currently, California expressly preempts local governments from regulating in the areas of registration or licensing of firearms; manufacture, sale or possession of imitation firearms; and licensing or permitting with respect to the purchase, ownership, possession or carrying of a concealable firearm in the home or place of business.

    A requirement that licensees maintain full color video surveillance that is of sufficient quality to provide for facial recognition and records all firearm transactions on the premises, all locations where firearms and ammunition are stored, the immediate exterior of the licensed premises, and all parking facilities owned by the licensee. The video equipment would be required to run during all business hours and be set to begin recording when motion is detected at all other times. The licensee would have to certify to having compliant video equipment at least yearly and make any needed repairs to the equipment within 15 days of any damage. The footage would need to be stored on the premises for at least five years, but that could be extended if the footage may be part of a law enforcement investigation. Licensees would also be required to post a prominent sign indicating that customers are being recorded.
    All licensees would be required to have a liability policy of a minimum of $1M per incident to cover liability arising from "theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises."
    All four restrictions would drive many FFLs out of business and further restrict law-abiding Californians second amendment rights.

    H/T: NRA-ILA

    * The views and opinions expressed on this web site are solely those of the original authors and contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Guns & Tactics Magazine, the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

    http://www.gunsandtactics.com/newspo...es-war-on-ffls
    Pat ------> NRA Endowment Member

    #2
    California can't fall into the Pacific soon enough

    Comment


      #3
      What a load of crap
      III%

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Paté View Post
        California Declares War on FFLs


        A bill in the California State Legislature will place many new, onerous restrictions on FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees). The bill, Assembly Bill 2459, was introduced by California Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) and was cosponsored by The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a far-left anti-gun rights organization.

        The bill will place four new restrictions if passed:

        A prohibition on licensee business premises being on a residential property.
        Nearly half of the FFLs in California are residential-based. Ammoland.com did an article back in 2013 that determined 49% of the FFLs in California were residential-based. Interestingly, only five states had less than 50% residential-based FFLs.

        A clear statement that localities may impose more restrictive requirements on licensees than those imposed by state law.
        This restriction opens the door for local municipalities to drive FFLs out of business by legislative fiat. Currently, California expressly preempts local governments from regulating in the areas of registration or licensing of firearms; manufacture, sale or possession of imitation firearms; and licensing or permitting with respect to the purchase, ownership, possession or carrying of a concealable firearm in the home or place of business.

        A requirement that licensees maintain full color video surveillance that is of sufficient quality to provide for facial recognition and records all firearm transactions on the premises, all locations where firearms and ammunition are stored, the immediate exterior of the licensed premises, and all parking facilities owned by the licensee. The video equipment would be required to run during all business hours and be set to begin recording when motion is detected at all other times. The licensee would have to certify to having compliant video equipment at least yearly and make any needed repairs to the equipment within 15 days of any damage. The footage would need to be stored on the premises for at least five years, but that could be extended if the footage may be part of a law enforcement investigation. Licensees would also be required to post a prominent sign indicating that customers are being recorded.
        All licensees would be required to have a liability policy of a minimum of $1M per incident to cover liability arising from "theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises."
        All four restrictions would drive many FFLs out of business and further restrict law-abiding Californians second amendment rights.

        H/T: NRA-ILA

        * The views and opinions expressed on this web site are solely those of the original authors and contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Guns & Tactics Magazine, the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

        http://www.gunsandtactics.com/newspo...es-war-on-ffls


        This should play out well for Republicans in November.
        "Except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall God governs in the affairs of men. I have lived, Sir, a long time..."
        Ben Franklin, arguably our least faith driven founding father

        Comment


          #5
          Coming soon to a liberal sinkhole near you.
          Give peace a chance, I'll cover you in case that doesn't work out.

          LIBERALISM should be classified as a MENTAL DISORDER!

          Comment


            #6
            What dicks!
            NRA Member, NYSRPA Member
            NY, NH, PA, Utah, Florida, Connecticut CCW

            “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

            Comment

            Working...
            X