California Proposal to Fine Firearms Retailers Put on Hold

Gun Shop Gun Counter Store Retailer
Gun Shop

California Association of Federal Firearms LicenseesSACRAMENTO, Calif. -(Ammoland.com)- AB 736, a bill that would have added to California’s anti-business and anti-second amendment climate failed passage out of the California State Assembly’s Committee on Appropriations.

AB 736 by Asm Mike Gipson (D- Inglewood) would have allowed the California Department of Justice to impose fines on Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) for relatively minor mistakes.

“It’s hard enough to do business as a firearms retailer in California without the state trying to impose additional fines that would tax them out of business,” noted Mike Baryla, President of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

Firearms retailers are among the most regulated small businesses in the state. They are often inspected and audited by both state (California Department of Justice) and federal (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) agencies.

Violations discovered from these efforts are often inadvertent record keeping or operating errors by a retailer or their employee; and while worthy of notation and notification, they rarely rise to a level worthy of a fine.

But AB 736 is not just about fines. CAL-FFL believes it is part of disturbing trend in which state and local governments impose burdensome taxes and onerous regulations in an effort put gun stores out of business.

FFLs play a major role in facilitating the legal transfer of firearms in the state of California. As their numbers dwindle, it reduces that opportunity for law abiding citizens, especially in rural communities, to legally obtain or transfer their firearms.

“AB 736 was just part of an ongoing effort by politicians to drive firearm retailers out of business,” said Baryla. “I guess they figure that having the right to own a firearm is not the same as having the right to buy or sell one.”

Other measures that CAL-FFL believes are part of this effort include:

  • SB 497 (Portantino) – Limits an individual to one firearms purchase every 30 days from an FFL. (Long gun purchase limitations were amended out of the bill.)
  • SB 464 (Hill) – Mandates costly new security requirements on licensed firearms dealers. (Awaiting the Governor’s signature or veto.)
  • AB 1525 (Baker) – Mandates new warning signs be posted at gun stores and included in all firearm packaging. (On it’s way to the governor’s desk for signature or veto.)

 

About California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees:

California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees is California’s most tenacious advocacy group for Second Amendment and related economic rights. CAL-FFL members include firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.

  • 7 thoughts on “California Proposal to Fine Firearms Retailers Put on Hold

    1. California is going the way of NJ and NY with one exception. The gangs in CA are much more dangerous than in the other two states. The response times for police officers is increasing and if a CA resident does not have a way to protect themselves, then it could be disastrous. I wonder what the IQ for many of people serving in gov’t that chase these stupid guns laws. One only has to cite Chicago gun laws and it has one of the highest homicide rates in the country. These are not from guns bought legally at gun stores by law-abiding people. CA gov’t wake up, where do you think the criminals get their guns? If I have an idea, you should as well.

      1. Re problems mentioned, problems for the law abiding private citizen, members of the state legislature couldn’t care less. After all, one suspects that they would have little to no trouble obtaining whatever sort of carry permit or license they desired. Beside that, they benefit from publicly provided armed security, don’t they.

        1. I may be wrong, but I read an article that stated that California state legislators have exempted themselves from California state gun laws, and have granted themselves the right to uncontested concealed carry. Something they work very hard to deny the average law-abiding citizen. They are essentially stating that “it’s okay for us, but not for you, because we’re politicians, and that makes us better than you, and we deserve to exercise our Second Amendment rights, but you don’t”.
          Typical ruling class mentality. Unfortunately this atrocity of political self entitlement was perpetrated by members of both parties.
          Dianne Feinstein the rabid anti-second amendment Democratic Senator from California herself has a concealed carry permit.
          It’s funny, you never see good old Diane standing on the steps of the United States Capitol building for a press conference holding aloft a carton of Marlboro cigarettes – as she so gleefully did with an AR-15 – claiming that they need to be outlawed or regulated, because they are so dangerous and harmful, when nicotine and nicotine related illnesses cause more deaths in one day than gun violence does in six months. I guess waving around a carton of cigarettes just doesn’t get the same press attention as waving an AR-15 around does.
          Such is the hypocrisy of our elected, so-called, representatives who do not represent us, but rather themselves, and the agendas of their political donors.

    Leave a Comment 7 Comments