NRA & CRPA Foundation File Lawsuit Challenging Firearm Sales “Fees”

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    August 26, 2011 – Attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA), California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation (CRPA Foundation), Herb Bauer’s Sporting Goods, and individual Fresno residents and firearm owners have filed a lawsuit challenging the “fees” the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) imposes on firearm purchasers. The lawsuit, Bauer v. Harris, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno), alleges that the excessive “fees” being charged by DOJ to purchase a gun create an unconstitutional infringement on the exercise of rights protected under the Second Amendment. A copy of the Complaint is available HERE.

    The full announcement can be read here.

    The background of this lawsuit started a year ago, when the CA DOJ announced it intended to seek a regulatory decrease in its DROS fees by $5. It seems that there was a surplus in its funds (and still is), to the tune of several million dollars.

    To that end, the CalGuns Foundation made an inquiry to ascertain the disposition of the fund and its balance. Several things (accounting and disposition problems) came to light in that inquiry from last year. Suffice it to say that the CA DOJ was not forthcoming. That thread is here.

    Despite the fact that this is yet another CA case, a positive judicial opinion will ultimately be precedent to affect other States/Localities where oppressive fees occur, just to acquire a firearm.

    Bauer, et al v. Harris, et al: Filed on Aug 25th, 2011 in the Eastern District of CA. Case # 1:2011cv01440. Chuck Michel & Assoc. (NRA & CRPA), attorneys for the plaintiffs.

    Internet Archive
    Justia Summary
     

    Kilroy

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 27, 2011
    3,069
    Of all the gun laws in California, this is the one the NRA decides to go after? Nothing really changes if they stop charging fees. Just saying... Why don't the go after the ban on guns that look evil?
     

    P-12 Norm

    Why be normal?
    Sep 9, 2009
    1,618
    Bowie, MD
    I want to see them go after the darned gun lock law, and the fired shell casing. Those are onerous fees that have queered a few sales when I have been trying to sell to customers. Some of them are economically depressed, meaning poor or unemployed, and that extra fee of the gun lock, or to get a gun fired if there is no casing, stops them cold.
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Of all the gun laws in California, this is the one the NRA decides to go after? Nothing really changes if they stop charging fees.

    Yes, and Yes it does.

    Of the various "fees" collected, they are being used to fund general law enforcement activities, other than what the "fees" where statutorily for - to regulate firearms transactions. This makes the "fees" a tax. Under the CA constitution (Art. XIIIA), no tax may be passed, except by a 2/3 majority in both the CA Legislative Houses. None of these "fees" were passed by such a majority.

    The statutes that enable these "fees" do not require the CA DOJ to charge anyone a fee. The statutes are worded such that the DOJ may charge up to x dollars, but it doesn't actually have to charge a thing.

    The statutes specify that the fees are supposed to be placed in separate accounts, but the actual accounting is so bollixed, that no ones seems to know how much money is taken in and what it is being used for. It appears the monies are somewhat co-mingled with each other and/or the general revenue accounts.

    The DROS (Dealers Record Of Sales) fee account appears to have in excess of over 10 million in monies that are being overcharged (this in addition to the other general police programs they are funding). The CA statutes call for the CA DOJ to use “fee” revenues for “the actual processing costs associated with the submission of a [DROS] to the [DOJ].”

    The "fees" are therefore unconstitutional taxes being levied against gun owners and have no relation to the governmental interest in regulating firearms transactions. The "fees" are an unconstitutional prerequisite on the exercise of a fundamental right to acquire a firearm.

    Over and above the setting of precedent, the fees paid by CA gun owners will decrease.
     

    Kilroy

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 27, 2011
    3,069
    Even so, let's say fees go away completely. California is still stuck with that ridiculous ban on guns that look like assault weapons, bullet buttons, 10 round mags, approved lists, etc, etc, etc. I wouldn't care too much if MD charged silly fees and got rid of their more restrictive rules and waiting period. Same with California.

    I lived in Cali for a few years and considered getting a gun, but the process wasn't worth the trouble, and I would be stuck with the lame 10 round mag, integral lock, and whatever else they require. I decided to just wait until I moved to a free state.

    I think the resources being spent on this challenge could be applied to something that would restore more freedoms to California residents. This doesn't seem to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
     

    Storm40

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 13, 2009
    1,373
    Harford County
    I lived in Cali for a few years and considered getting a gun, but the process wasn't worth the trouble, and I would be stuck with the lame 10 round mag, integral lock, and whatever else they require. I decided to just wait until I moved to a free state

    What I wonder is, how can all the "special" requirements made by states not run afoul of the commerce clause and congress' ability to "regulate" (as in, to make consistent) commerce amongst the states. California requiring manufacturer's to make products in certain moonbat-approved ways just for them has got to be an unconstitutional burden.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    CalGuns is challenging all the so-called assault weapon bans and the rest of the things some have brought up. Some is in it's infancy, some being held a little while, and some is in full assault mode. All of it is on their radar.

    Those guys are pretty well strategized. CRPA and NRA are both tied in, as well. Don't sweat the other stuff...it is not being ignored.

    Like Al said, this is really an important foundational case. Once you limit the ability of the government to place a tax on the object of a fundamental right, you also set the bar for other restrictions. If the government cannot tax the guns because they have no compelling interest in doing so...there is not a whole lot of regulation that survives the same logic.

    Everything is linked...
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I have always had mixed feelings. On the one hand, they probably should prevail. On the other hand, depending how they define excessive, it could easily spell the end of Pittsman-Roberson excise taxes of firearms and ammunition.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    I have always had mixed feelings. On the one hand, they probably should prevail. On the other hand, depending how they define excessive, it could easily spell the end of Pittsman-Roberson excise taxes of firearms and ammunition.

    what is that?


    I thought she did a good job but that is not a great panel. I refuse to believe that these panels are random. Thomas is getting on way to many of these 2a cases for them to be
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    I have always had mixed feelings. On the one hand, they probably should prevail. On the other hand, depending how they define excessive, it could easily spell the end of Pittsman-Roberson excise taxes of firearms and ammunition.

    And why would that be a bad thing?
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,361
    SoMD / West PA
    what is that?


    I thought she did a good job but that is not a great panel. I refuse to believe that these panels are random. Thomas is getting on way to many of these 2a cases for them to be

    Pittman-Robinson act?

    Is a 10% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, and treestands that is given back to the states based upon the number of licensed hunters.

    The money can only be spent on preservation of the outdoor sports. It can buy public land for hunters, shooting ranges, and hunter education.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    And why would that be a bad thing?

    Pittman-Robinson funds a lot of conservation activities that states like MD would never fund themselves. Especially gun + archery ranges on state lands.

    Eighty-five percent of the funding for Maryland's state wildlife programs comes from hunting license fees and a federal excise tax on sport hunting devices and ammunition. The federal aid funds are derived from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (or Pittman-Robertson) Fund

    http://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/publiclands/southern/myrtlegrove.aspx

    As I said, I have mixed feelings. I have to think a favorable ruling would put firearms-specific excise taxes in doubt. Funding will be a yearly political battle. First chance the left gets, they will shut off funding to gun ranges on state lands.

    You can probably kiss goodbye funding for gun ranges on state lands in MD, maybe the ranges themselves. Maybe a lot of the managed hunting programs too. More deer, less hunters, less land, more accidents, less shooting.

    It will all depend what "excessive" means.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,891
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom