New CA Gun Laws for Military Personnel?

[SHE3PDOG]

I've bought a few guns while stationed in California, both long guns and handguns, but when I went into one of the local gun stores in San Diego, I was informed that the laws concerning the purchase of firearms for military personnel living off base have changed within the last few weeks. I had all the documentation that I had previously used to purchase a handgun in California with me: military ID, orders, home-state driver's license (not California), a copy of my utility bill, and my car's California registration. I was told that the documentation was insufficient to verify my residency and that I must obtain a letter from my commander verifying my address.

Once I got back home, I looked up California's laws pertaining to this and could find nothing stating that I, as a military member, must obtain a letter from my commander. I found in both the California Code of Regulations (Here) and the California Penal Code (Here) lists of acceptable forms of residency proof. Perhaps I am missing something though. Does anyone else have any insight on this?

Edit: Not sure if the links worked. I've never cited law before, so this could be messy.

California Code of Regulations: Title 11, Division 5, Chapter 4

California Penal Code: Part 6, Title 4, Division 6, Chapter 2, Article 2, 26845

[Librarian]

Your LGS is very confused.

There have been no changes in CA laws regarding military 'in the last few weeks' nor are any bills currently pending in the legislature that would address this.

Penal code

26845.
(a) No handgun may be delivered unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm presents documentation indicating that the person is a California resident.

(b) Satisfactory documentation shall include a utility bill from within the last three months, a residential lease, a property deed, or military permanent duty station orders indicating assignment within this state, or other evidence of residency as permitted by the Department of Justice.

is still good law.

Two notes: generally, new CA laws take effect in January. If a local gun store says 'laws changed recently' in July, it's a good guess they are making stuff up. (It isn't a certain guess - some laws have implementation dates other than January of the year following passage of the bill.)

And, the CA legislative web site does not keep the context of your law search, so a link such as "/showCodesTextSearchResults.xhtml" doesn't bring up for others what you got when you looked. That used to happen to me a lot, before I became untrusting and cynical ...

[SHE3PDOG]

Ya, I figured out that the links didn't work. That's why I tried to cite the laws that I found. I probably did it incorrectly though.

Anyways, I'm glad that someone else thought the same thing I did. I sort of figured there was something strange going on, but I wasn't entirely sure. Perhaps they just had a store policy or something.

Either way it is unlikely that they will see my face in their store again. There are plenty of other gun stores in the San Diego area that would be more than willing to take my money.

[Aguila Blanca]

Note that part (b) of the law cited by Librarian clearly says "or" as the separator in that list of possible proofs. That means you only need ONE of the items listed, not all of them. Any ONE item in that list of possible documents is all that's required to satisfy the law.

If the law said "and," you would need all of them.

[SamNavy]

One of two things is going on.

1. The store has received word or taken out of context something that their local ATF guy has told them... or they are getting conflicting advice from multiple people at their ATF office. ATF guys are human, just like FFL's... if some ATF guy "interprets" some law different than other agents in their office, and none of the FFL's are interested in correcting them, then you get different LGS's and FFL's in the same geographic are telling customers all sort of different things. It makes the FFL look uninformed when he's just doing what his ATF said, and doesn't care enough to get to the bottom of it.

2. That guy is tired of the military. I've seen it several times in my dozen Navy moves over the years that an LGS in town just doesn't want to "deal" with the military anymore. The LGS feels for some reason it's too much work to look at all the different state DL's and feels he can keep himself in business without the military.

On several occasions, I've gone so far as to call the local ATF office, find the agent responsible for a particular LGS, have the agent call the LGS and specifically tell them the requirement for military, and STILL have the LGS refuse to release the gun. I then put the word out as far as I can in the local community about that store.

TO THE OP, that LGS is just dead wrong. Mil ID, orders, state issued DL, and a local utility bill is the MOST that should be required in any state. There are other methods of proof, but an LGS that requires some SPECIFIC piece of documentation outside the 4 I listed, they have an agenda. There is absolutely NO WAY any LGS should require military letterhead as a proof of address. That's just plain stupid. Any LGS that requires more than ID/Orders/DL/utility needs training. You owe it to the local military community to track this down and fix it. I would highly recommend you call the local ATF office, find out who is responsible for that LGS, and get them in the loop. If you LGS is just being a dick, put out the word on CALGUNS, and start making some noise. Definitely call the ATF.

So, I would go back to the store, ASK HIM for whatever proof/paperwork he has telling him about these "new laws", and give that LGS one more shot at earning your business, then ask him to transfer the gun to another store in town who isn't all F'ed up. Then publish your experience on the California forums and make it hurt financially for that store trying to put an extra burden on the local military.

[ClydeFrog]

How will active duty & retired US armed forces LE(MPs, MAAs, OSI, NCIS, CIDC, Security Forces, etc) who are now allowed to carry under the modified LEOSA(signed into law by President Obama) be affected by this CA state law?
By federal law(Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act), retired US military service members who worked in LE & criminal investigations(OSI agents, MPs, NCIS special agents, DoD police/083, US Air Force Security Forces) can carry firearms concealed with proper IDs & certifications.

CF

[Librarian]

Note that part (b) of the law cited by Librarian clearly says "or" as the separator in that list of possible proofs. That means you only need ONE of the items listed, not all of them. Any ONE item in that list of possible documents is all that's required to satisfy the law.

True, but if .mil retain their out of state DL, or choose to use military ID as proof of identity, then the orders are the proper proof of residency.

With a CA DL or ID, and the other proofs of residency, worries about being treated differently should go away. If on active duty, should still have those orders to CA, of course.

[SHE3PDOG]

Well, I know for a fact it isn't a new law now. I went to a different shop and was only required to give my mil ID and orders. I still find it strange, but I suppose they retain the right to refuse business to whoever they want. Is it possible that different stores in the same county are under different ATF guys?