I know most of you reading this are going to be shocked to find that California is openly hostile to gun owners, but as a retired California cop, as a third generation California native, and as a law abiding gun owner, I can personally attest to that fact. The most recently implemented part of the multiple decades long attack on law abiding gun owners is the ammunition background check, which was part of proposition 63 that was passed by 63% of California voters in 2016. It was heavily backed by Gavin Newsom.
These gun laws that keep getting enacted in California, either by elected officials or by the voters, have absolutely nothing to do with reducing violent crime. In fact, proposition 63 was so flawed that it was opposed by a significant number of law enforcement associations and California district attorneys. Among the groups opposing the law were the California Police Chief’s Association, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, the Western States Sheriffs’ Association, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, California Fish & Game Wardens’ Association, and the Law Enforcement Action Network.
Think about that for a moment. The California Police Chief’s Association opposed it. Police chiefs are appointed by the mayors or city councils here in ultra-liberal California. Police chiefs often, but not always, echo the same liberal talking points of those who appointed them. The police chiefs saw this proposition as so flawed that they publicly opposed it. That should tell you just how bad the law is.
Now that the law has gone into full effect, I have heard one tale after another of people who should have no problem buying ammo, failing the ammunition background checks. The sheer volume of people who have incorrectly been denied the ability to purchase ammo is shocking. These people, through absolutely no fault of their own, are being denied the ability to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Ammunition Dealer Perspective
I recently had the opportunity to speak with the owner of an ammunition retail store here in California about the implementation of the ammunition background checks. The owner of that store just so happens to be a retired cop. The relevance of that fact will become apparent as you read on. However, due to fear of potential backlash from the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms (BOF), he has asked that I not name him or his business. Sadly, based upon the recent actions of the BOF, and the horror story he related to me, I absolutely understand his concerns. For the purpose of this article, I will call him “Steve.”
Steve explained to me that a year prior to the ammunition background checks going online, any employee of a business that is licensed to sell ammo in California needed to obtain a certificate of eligibility (COE). That process required each applicant to get their fingerprints taken at a Live Scan location and submit an application, which has a total cost of $221 per applicant. At the time of their initial applications, all of his employees were approved.
As the actual implementation of the background checks approached, all of the employee’s COEs were close to expiring, so they submitted renewal applications, at a cost of $22 each. One of the employees was delayed for months, and eventually denied the renewal of his COE. The BOF had located an arrest (only an arrest, not a conviction) for a felony DUI from 40 years ago and was denying the renewal based on that. Mind you, arrests without convictions cannot be held against you, but that is not deterring the CA Department of Justice and the bureaucrats who work there from doing exactly that. When Steve contact the BOF to discuss this, they instructed them to petition the court to try and get the felony conviction expunged, except that there is no felony conviction to expunge.
As a retired cop, Steve understands the difference between an arrest and a conviction. He attempted to explain this difference to the BOF employee, but they dismissed him and told him that was just the way it is and that was his only option. As if losing a longtime employee solely due to the inept employees of the BOF was not enough of a hit, Steve had much more in store for him.
In order to comply with the computerized ammunition background checks, Steve was forced to buy two new computers and card readers. He had to purchase new display cases for his store so that the boxes of ammo are kept out of reach of customers, and since he also sells ammunition at gun shows in California, that meant huge changes to the setup of his tables at the shows. All in all, Steve had to shell out over $8,000 for equipment just to comply with the new law.
System Goes Live
Prior to turning the system on, which occurred on Monday July 1, 2019, the BOF provided absolutely zero training or direction for retailers. Steve was at his shop at 7am that morning when the system went live so he could try and figure it out before he opened for business. By 8am, he had already discovered a serious flaw. The retailer is required to choose the caliber of ammo from a drop down box, but the list is far from complete. In addition to that, the dealer is required to sign each and every Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) attesting, under penalty of perjury, that the information on the form is true, which you cannot do if the caliber you are selling is not listed.
Steve showed me some of the calibers in the list, and some that were missing. There were cartridges listed that neither Steve nor I had ever heard of, and at the same time, some newer cartridges such as the .224 Valkyrie were glaringly missing. And in the firearms industry, new calibers are created on a fairly regular basis. The fact that they had not even attempted to deal with with that is dumbfounding.
Once Steve opened his doors for business that day, things rapidly went from bad to worse. Customer after customer failed the instant background checks, and the system does not offer a reason for the failure. Steve estimates that about 25% of his customers during that first month failed the ammunition background checks. I asked Steve, based on his extensive law enforcement career, of those people who failed during that first month, how many would you have had any reservations about selling ammo to? He quickly replied “Zero!”
For a person who fails the background check, there is an appeal process. However, even after completing all of the required steps, it does not guarantee a person will pass the instant background check, which costs $1 each time you submit a request.
Steve told me of one regular customer who failed his first attempt, and after doing what the DOJ BOF instructed him to do to fix the problem, tried again and failed. This process was repeated a total of 12 times when the customer finally gave up and chose to go the more expensive ($19 as opposed to $1) comprehensive check. He passed that check and after three weeks of attempting to navigate the ridiculous hoops, was finally able to purchase his hunting ammo.
Knowing he just passed the comprehensive test, Steve forked over the $1 fee himself and ran the customer through the instant system and he came up denied still. Steve called the BOF and they said that is correct, that the two systems do not talk to one another. So, from this point on, that customer will have to pay $19 for the privilege of buying ammo so he that can exercise his 2nd amendment right.
Why They Failed
One of the most common reasons people are failing the background checks is because they either have not purchased a handgun since 1995 or a rifle since 2014, or they have changed sany of their personal information, including their address, since their last firearm purchase. You see, the BOF had to create their own database of people who are eligible to purchase ammuntion, and since they figure if you could legally purchase a gun, then you should be able to legally purchase ammo, so they used the computerized DROS records that they already had to create their database.
Of Steve’s customers who failed, which again was more than 25% of his customers, most returned after clearing up the problems and ALL of them had been denied due to clerical errors on the part of the DOJ/BOF. Steve is unaware of a single prohibited person, either in his store or any of the dealers he speaks to, that was prevented from purchasing ammunition by this law.
Ludicrous Requirements
Getting beyond the failures of both the DOJ/BOF for their handling of the implementation of the system, and the failures of the system itself, the law has placed some ridiculously onerous record keeping requirements on the licensed dealers.
Every ammunition sale requires a DROS, but it goes even further than that. If the customer buys more than one caliber of ammo, or more than one different type of ammo of the same caliber, a separate DROS is required for each different product. Two copies of each DROS are required to be printed. The customer gets one and the dealer gets the other. Despite the fact that the dealer submits the DROS to the BOF electronically at the time of the sale, the dealer is required to maintain that original, signed DROS for five years.
As a comparison, a DROS is also completed for every firearm sale in California. Firearms are not a consumable item and given proper care and maintenance, they are serviceable for generations. I personally own several guns that are well over 100 years old that function perfectly. With that in mind, the DROS for a firearm sale must be maintained by the gun dealer for three years.
Yes, you read that correctly. The ammo dealer must maintain the DROS for the sale of a consumable, non-serialized item for five years, while the DROS for a serialized, non-consumable item only need be maintained for three years. On what planet does that make any sense?
On top of the other problems, the system relies on internet access so if the power is out (because that never happens in California…), the internet goes down, cell service is spotty at a gun show, or any other number of potential issues, there is no backup method for getting the approval.
And just to top it all off, the DOJ/BOF now will perform surprise inspections of licensed ammunition dealers. They will be ensuring that all of the ammo is kept out of reach of the customers, that all employees have a valid COE and that the ridiculous amount of paperwork they are requiring is being properly maintained. The DOJ/BOF can revoke a store’s license to sell ammunition for just about any violation, and there is little recourse for the dealer.
The Bottom Line
This law is not only a significant infringement on the rights of law abiding gun owners, it is having a huge impact on private businesses. Steve told me that his gross sales have dropped off so drastically since the law went into effect, that was at one time his dream retirement career has been destroyed. He has owned and operated his business for a number of years, and in the four months that have transpired since the law went into effect, he has barely done 10% of his normal business.
It is hard not to sound like a conspiracy theorist when discussing this topic, but sometimes the conspiracy is real. The people who wrote this legislation, and those who pushed for its passage, knew damn well that it would have no effect on criminal use of firearms, but instead would add yet another hurdle to the law abiding citizen trying to exercise their second amendment right, and eventually, citizens will just stop trying.
The Balance Test
Out of my circle of friends, I personally know two people who have failed the ammunition background check. One is a lifetime hunter with nothing more serious than a traffic violation on his record, and the other is an actively employed law enforcement officer. Another friend, one of my former supervisors, told me his nephew, a battalion chief with the fire department with zero criminal history also failed. I asked Steve how many people that he knew were cops had failed the background check in his store alone, to which he said “ten, at least.”
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that an actively employed cop should be able to pass a background check to buy ammo. If that many cops are failing, I can only imagine how many non-cops have been wrongly denied.
Everything in life should be evaluated by some sort of a balance test, in other words, is the benefit worth the cost. In this case, that cost is the unwarranted, unconstitutional denial of an American citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed rights, and all for a benefit that cannot remotely be proven.
To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, “A right delayed, is a right denied.”
This cannot be allowed to stand.
Residents of other states, take heed. If you allow California to fall, this will eventually make its way to you.
If you like the content you see here, visit our home page for more articles, and remember to sign up for our newsletter.
