Bill Of Sale California Department Of Housing: Fill & Download for Free

I am from California. We are what is known as a NICS ‘point-of-contact’ state. What does this mean?It means that instead of our FFL’s running an instant background check through e-NICS, or by telephoning Martinsburg, WV for a response and pertinent NTN (NICS Transaction Number) to write on the 4473, we instead use what is known as the ‘DES’, or ‘DROS Entry System.’ What is DROS? It stands for Dealer’s Record of Sale.This system is maintained by the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms. The California Attorney General is mandated by the state Penal Code to maintain this system and act as the state intermediary for NICS.When I input a DROS for a customer, a few things happen:I do not receive an NTN number. I receive a DROS number. This is a ten digit number separated with a hyphen in the middle. I write that number down on the transaction number box. The DROS tells me when I submitted the transaction, down to the exact second, and it tells me two other things.Earliest Delivery DateLatest Delivery DateIn the top right hand corner of the DROS, it will say STATUS: PENDING.It will continue to say PENDING until one of a few things happen:APPROVED - The customer has waited the statutorily mandated ten days and was approved by both the California and Federal governments. The gun may be delivered to the customer. Because California mandates background checks for ammunition purchases, the customer may add ammo to the firearm transaction to save them a dollar. All subsequent ammo transactions cost one dollar.DELAYED - The DOJ/FBI needs additional time to review the purchaser’s information. Federal law and California law allow up to 30 days to provide a response. When we are given an APPROVAL AFTER DELAY response, we still cannot release the firearm. We must wait for the State of California to provide us the NICS Transaction Number. Once we receive that, the gun may go home. Curious about DENIAL AFTER DELAY or UNDETERMINED AFTER DELAY? Read on, the same applies.DENIED - The DOJ/FBI have determined the purchaser is prohibited. In my DROS account, I will often receive an ‘eligibility notice’ which tells me the status or disposition of a submitted DROS even if I am not the one who entered said DROS. If a denial I must print out a copy of the DROS transaction page and the ‘PURCHASER PROHIBITED - DO NOT RELEASE THE FIREARM’ cover page for our packet. The same is true if I receive a delay or undetermined notice.UNDETERMINED - The DOJ/FBI cannot come to a conclusion and leaves the onus of responsibility on the dealer if they decide to release. Most FFL’s, especially the one in which I work, have a policy to NOT release on this response. We cancel the DROS and refund the customer their money minus DROS/cancellation fees. If we release, it has been judged in court the dealer is responsible for whatever that person does with it. We don’t need to be run out of business because the court refuses to hold the criminal to account and blames everyone else.Now, when a purchaser picks up a firearm, I must hit ‘DELIVER GUN’ on the DROS page to report to the state the gun has gone home. If I do not, I have just committed a misdemeanor. If our A&D (our record of acquisition and disposition) and our firearms ledger reflect we have released the gun, but have not through the DROS, we are in hot water and can lose our state and federal licenses. These records are inspectable items for the Bureau of Firearms and the ATF.So, you can see we can’t play games, nor would we, with the ten day waiting period.Now that you understand how the process works and how much WE are regulated, let’s talk about the efficacy of the ten day waiting period.The legislation was passed probably because some idiot went to WAL-MART and took a gun home same day and popped his wife with it 20+ years ago over an argument about the electric bill, and the Democrats just can’t have that happen. So, now, society is guilty and everyone buying a gun is a wife murderer, unless they wait ten days…So, I must ask… Who’s to say if someone is going to kill in the heat of passion, what is ten days? That’s if they go about obtaining a firearm the legal way! Does a person who ransacks your home, are they going to wait ten days after they break into your house to steal your guns?For the crackhead who needs to rob people for money, when he buys a Lorcin L380 from a local gangmember named 8-ball for two bucks, will 8-ball input his information into DROS, charge him the DROS fees, and make sure he waits ten days?NO.Do you see the comedy in this logic? It’s absolutely ridiculous and absurd, and needs to be called out as such. When will gun control advocates get the point that laws do not affect the law breakers, only the law abiding? I wonder about this often.This is one thing I absolutely, one hundred percent blame the Democrats for. This is their making and their fault. They should be ridiculed until the end of time for it. I will never be moderate on gun rights whatsoever. It is a Constitutional right. It shall not be infringed. A right delayed is a right denied.Shall we consider making you wait ten days for protesting for student loan forgiveness?What about waiting ten days for voting for a Democrat, just to give you time to think clearly?No, you don’t like that?Neither do we.

Are all Americans partiality brainwashed about Ronald Reagan?Hailed as a secular Saint among Republicans and other conservatives, President Reagan exemplifies what their ideal conservative should be.Really?1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into lawthe largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan wasnever able to get the deficit under control.3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980’s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officialssecretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto wasoverridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan11. Reagan Banned open carry in California.Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.12. Banning the sale of machine guns and other automatic weapons.The NRA fondly cites the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as "the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history." And while it did in fact roll back some of the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it also contained a provision — banning the sale of machine guns and other fully automatic weapons to civilians — that came back to haunt the NRA. Robert Spitzer, an expert on gun law, tells NPR that it was "a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons." Congress did just that in 1994, thanks — very plausibly — to Ronald Reagan.13. Mandating background checks for handgun purchases.In 1991, Reagan supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named for his press secretary shot during the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life. That bill passed in 1993, mandating federal background checks and a five-day waiting period. "Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics,"Reagan wrote in a 1991 op-ed for The New York Times. "This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes, and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped."14. Banning assault weapons.Despite the law being enacted well after his presidency, Reagan was credited with playing a critical role in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which has since expired. Reagan's personal and effective lobbying helped the bill overcome the strong objections of the NRA. "The vote on the assault weapon ban was contentious and barely passed the House of Representatives," notes Andrew Kaczynski. "At least two members of the House of Representatives credited Reagan with influencing their votes. The bill passed 216-214, a margin of two votes."Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald ReaganSo Reagan, the Conservative Saint raised taxes 11 times, signed legislation giving amnesty to millions of undocumented workers, signed gun control legislation, signed pro-choice legislation, and signed legislation preserving "Socialist" social security.These are all Liberal Democrat policies.Most Republicans are just in plain denial. They have a very distorted understanding of Reagan's legacy, and conservative media outlets purposely brainwash people into believing Reagan was the most conservative public figure ever with the intention of marginalizing all centrist voices.Facts get in the way when you're selling garbage on a dialy basis.Today, Ronald Reagan would be maligned as a "tax and spend liberal, " who commit the sin of signing pro-choice legislation, He would be called a "Socialist on the verge of taking people's guns away," for signing gun control legislation, and Donald Trump would say he's "Liberal and weak on immigration" for being pro-amnesty.

Lets look at this in another way. An automobile can and is often operated irresponsibly.People drink and drive, fail to secure themselves or their passengers, roll through stop signs and exceed the posted speed limit. The real perceived danger in operating a vehicle is when someone is injured or looses their life for example in cases of drinking and driving, reckless speed or eluding law enforcement.If we as a society wanted to prevent people who might do these thing from operating a vehicle, how do we do that?The same holds true for those who choose to own a firearm. How do we know that otherwise law abiding citizen will one day pick up a loaded weapon and go on a killing spree?Not everyone can agree on who represents a danger to society and who doesn’t until a crime is committed.Anytime there is a controversial topic and money involved you will more than likely find political activism and people who seem to be making out financially well during a crisis. In recent times it would appear there are groups on both sides who exploit circumstances without showing any great interests in being reasonable and accusations of this seem to dominate mainstream news sources.Some claims are out right ridiculous while some are merely intellectually dishonest but in both instances people who have no first hand knowledge of the facts are making decisions based on faulty data in which they repeat to someone else exacerbating the difficulty in making informed choices.2. All sources of information should be viewed with great skepticism and only then should be peer reviewed often.The Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically represents limits on government power and authority. It also makes it clear that government itself has limits and is prohibited from making laws that infringe on our collective Rights. What’s more is it is an oxymoron to claim one Right is somehow superior and is academically more worthy of protections from government than another for in many ways this is subjective to the individual. Either all Rights need to be honored or all Rights are at risk of being lost.3) If you don’t understand why government simply can’t make a law that conflicts with the Bill of Rights and how the Bill of Rights can be amended you could at least remain open to the possibility that there may be some piece of missing information that could change your position.All due respect to your question however I don’t agree with your premise that nobody is trying to take guns away. They’re lying. I think what I find most offensive is that those who serve the public swear an oath to protect and defend the Rights of the Constitution and then insist that they need to be elected so they can end those Rights as we know them today. Why do I say this? Well, let’s see what they've had to say themselves.Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States“Only the police should have handguns.”“When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps” Enough is Enough, MTV, March 22, 1994Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Associated Press, November 18, 1993“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.” 60 Minutes, CBS, February 5, 1995“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”Howard Metzenbaum, former U.S. Senator“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”Charles Pashayan, U.S. Representative from California“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” United Nations Conference on Small Arms, 2001Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” Town Hall Meeting, June 1999, Fremont, CaliforniaWilliam Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13AJan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” Tape recorded on June 25, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp at the Chicago Gay Pride ParadeMajor Owens, U.S. Representative from New York“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (Originally named “The National Council to Ban Handguns”)” …. the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” 60 Minutes interview“We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53Sarah Brady, Chairperson for Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign)“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” Handguns in America, Hearst Newspapers Special Report, October 1997“We would like to see, in the future, what we will probably call needs-based licensing of all weapons. …Where it would make it much more difficult for anybody to be able to purchase handguns….” Sarah Brady speech to the Women’s National Democratic Club, Sept. 21, 1993“To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” Tampa Tribune, Oct 21, 1993Jim Brady“[Handguns] For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police.” Parade Magazine, June 26, 1994Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy“Handguns should be outlawed.”Bernard Parks, Chief of Police, L.A. California“We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for a show or someone having it in a collection.” Reuters, June 9, 2000Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center“ … immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner“We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people.” Testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime CommissionsAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” Board of Directors in September 1976 – see national ACLU policy #47Rosie O’Donnell, TV talk show hostess“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” The Rosie O’Donnell Show April 19, 1999Violence Policy Center (VPC)“[gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer … licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.”“[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns, The Times Union, October 18, 2004Alan M. Dershowitz, Lawyer and Frankfurter Professor of Law“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.” The Crimson Daily, April 9, 2003Michael Gardner, President of NBC News“There is no reason for anyone in this country … to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun …The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” USA Today, January 16, 1992“In fact, only police, soldiers — and, maybe, licensed target ranges — should have handguns. No one else needs one.” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1991Editorial, Los Angeles Times“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it’s the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safe.” Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Dec. 28, 1993“…The Times supports a near-total ban on the manufacture and private ownership of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns almost exclusively in the hands of law enforcement officials.” Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us, Dec. 10, 1993Jack E. White, Time Magazine national correspondent“Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one.” Washington Times, May 8, 1999Gary Wills, syndicated columnist“Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other.” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 17, 1981George Napper, Atlanta public-safety commissioner“If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law.” U.S. News and World ReportJanet Reno, former U.S. attorney general“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” Addressing a 1984 B’nai B’rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida, per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of MiamiMarion Barry, former mayor, Washington D.C.“Our neighbors in Virginia are just as responsible for these killings as the criminals are because they won’t pass strong gun [control] legislation.” This Week With David Brinkley, ABC TV, March 19, 1989 (Ed: The claim being that citizens of Virginia were responsible for murders committed in Washington D.C.)Should we not take them at their word? When they consistently admit total bans are the goal, supported by increasingly draconian laws that fail to get guns out of the hands of criminals, what other purpose can gun control serve?Obviously it can’t be “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”, because that’s not what gun control does. It can’t be “making sure no innocent people get murdered”, because nothing in human history has put a stop to that, we have only one end state ever explicitly sought by gun controllers. A total ban on private ownership of firearms.Source Gun Facts | Quotes Concerning Gun ControlUntil we can at least agree that there is a powerful movement in high positions of authority to ban firearms I don’t know where else to go with this but either way, all Rights need to be honored and protected first!