The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Armed_Chicagoan · February 9, 2018, 05:54 PM

Apparently it applied to 03 C&R licensees, not dealer FFLs.

California state law explicitly exempted 03 FFLs from the "one handgun per month" provision in state law for C&R handguns, but the AG in 2014 tried to apply the law to 03 FFLs. That's what was struck down, apparently the one handgun per month rule still stands for those who don't have an 03 FFL. And presumably if the legislator decides to strip the exemption for 03 FFLs they could still do so.

So not really a huge victory here, and it's really unbelievable to me that a lower court ruled the AG could blatantly ignore the state law exemption.

February 9, 2018, 05:54 PM	#3
Armed_Chicagoan Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2013 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 776	Apparently it applied to 03 C&R licensees, not dealer FFLs. California state law explicitly exempted 03 FFLs from the "one handgun per month" provision in state law for C&R handguns, but the AG in 2014 tried to apply the law to 03 FFLs. That's what was struck down, apparently the one handgun per month rule still stands for those who don't have an 03 FFL. And presumably if the legislator decides to strip the exemption for 03 FFLs they could still do so. So not really a huge victory here, and it's really unbelievable to me that a lower court ruled the AG could blatantly ignore the state law exemption.