Posted on 01/29/2015 12:00:13 PM PST by atomic_dog
California’s new Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC) Program laws went into effect on January 1, 2015. On January 6, 2015, a lawsuit, Belemjian v. Harris, was filed in California Superior Court on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (http://www.crpa.org), FFLGuard (http://www.fflguard.com), and several individual gun owners and firearm instructors against the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop any enforcement of “underground regulations” that the DOJ illegally adopted when it tried to implement the FSC laws. The lawsuit also seeks to stop California’s new long-gun safe handling demonstration law from being enforced until the DOJ adopts implementing regulations through the proper process, as the law required the DOJ to do.
The new Firearm Safety Certificate program replaced the Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) program. Prior to the first of this year, the HSC program required handgun purchasers to pass a written test about handgun safety. Once passed, would-be handgun purchasers obtained an HSC card with which they could obtain a handgun, but only after first completing a safe handling demonstration using the handgun that was being purchased. Now the HSC program has been turned into the FSC program, and requirements for handgun transfers now cover all firearm purchases.
(Excerpt) Read more at crpa.org ...
I purchased a new shogun recently and was upset to discover that CA DOJ required a credit card to obtain the FSC that one is now required to have before aquiring a long gun since I pay cash for all firearms related purchases. Looks like that was not the only problem with the DOJ rolled this program out. Glad to see my CRPA dues at work. I read the complaint and it goes after DOJ for "underground regualation" in violation of the California Administration Procedure Act (APA). DOJ often gets caught by surprise by that and they had the good sense to file this in Fresno and I hope Kamala gets a well deserved b**ch slap.
This is nothing more than a ‘poll tax’ on the 2nd amendment.
If they can’t require tests for voting they can’t require this.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.