Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

Background Check Fee Shows Even California DOJ Can’t Decipher State Gun Laws

Monday, February 3, 2020

Background Check Fee Shows Even California DOJ Can’t Decipher State Gun Laws

When a state’s lawmakers and government officials can’t even decipher the maze of gun laws they have created, it’s probably a good sign that there’s too much gun control on the books. Such is the case in California, where a recent change in state law passed by anti-gun lawmakers inadvertently lowered the cost of a “Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check” from $19 to $1. Unaware of the change until it was brought to their attention by gun rights supporters, the California Department of Justice collected the $19 fee in contravention of state law.

Since July 1, 2019, gun owners in the Golden State have been required to undergo a background check each time they purchase ammunition. The program has been a disaster. In December, the Sacramento Bee reported that tens of thousands of law-abiding Californians have been improperly denied ammunition purchases under the program, while only 101 were prohibited persons who were rejected. According to the report, “[b]etween July 1 and November, nearly one in every five ammunition purchases was rejected by the California Department of Justice.”

There are two types of “Ammunition Eligibility Checks” in California. A “Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check” cross-references an applicant’s name with the information maintained in the state’s Automated Firearm System, which is populated with information gleaned from firearm purchases, firearms registration, and concealed carry permit records. The fee for this type of check is $1. If an individual’s information is not in the AFS, the person must undergo a “Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check,” which the California DOJ describes as “a comprehensive review of its records to determine the person’s eligibility to own or possess ammunition.” The fee for this check was $19.

On October 11, 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1669 into law. In order to shift how certain funds collected during firearms transfers could be used by the state, the legislation reduced the fee placed on firearms purchases in Penal Code § 28225 ($14 by statute, but raised to $19 by regulation) to $1. At the same time, the legislation created a new separate fee of $31.19. The legislation went into effect on January 1.

The drafters of the legislation and the California DOJ appear to have neglected to understand how the reduction of the first fee to $1 would impact other sections of the Penal Code.

Penal Code § 30370 makes clear that for a “Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check,”

The department shall recover the cost of processing and regulatory and enforcement activities related to this section by charging the ammunition transaction or purchase applicant a fee not to exceed the fee charged for the department's Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS) process, as described in Section 28225 and not to exceed the department's reasonable costs.

Therefore, the fee for a “Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check” is not to exceed the fee charged under Penal Code § 28225 - $1. However, after January 1 California continued to charge the improper $19 fee in violation of state law.

The National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association have made the California Department of Justice Aware of this discrepancy.

This episode is illustrative of just how little respect anti-gun lawmakers and administrators have for gun owners. These individuals do not hesitate to impose ever more convoluted burdens on law-abiding gun owners or to punish well-meaning gun owners whose benign conduct falls just outside their byzantine regime. Yet these same people cannot be bothered to comprehend or hold themselves to the progressively ridiculous laws that they create and administer.

TRENDING NOW
Arkansas Atrocity Highlights Need for Reform in Rules Governing Carry in Public Parks

News  

Monday, August 25, 2025

Arkansas Atrocity Highlights Need for Reform in Rules Governing Carry in Public Parks

On the heels of the shocking and seemingly random murder of a couple in an Arkansas state park while they were walking a trail with their young children, many are revisiting their self-defense plans in the great ...

Everytown Gun “Safety” Course—Step One: Don’t Own a Gun

News  

Monday, August 25, 2025

Everytown Gun “Safety” Course—Step One: Don’t Own a Gun

Our friends at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) have reported that Everytown, an active and well-funded anti-gun organization, is now purporting to be branching out into teaching gun owners how to safely handle firearms.

Update: North Carolina House Reschedules Veto Override Vote

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Update: North Carolina House Reschedules Veto Override Vote

Today, the House rescheduled the veto override vote on Senate Bill 50, Freedom to Carry NC, to Monday, September 22. 

Florida Urges SCOTUS to Grant Cert in NRA’s Challenge to its Young Adult Purchase Ban and to Rule its Own Law Unconstitutional

Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Florida Urges SCOTUS to Grant Cert in NRA’s Challenge to its Young Adult Purchase Ban and to Rule its Own Law Unconstitutional

In May, the National Rifle Association petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear NRA v. Glass, our challenge to Florida’s ban on firearm purchases by adults under 21.

NRA Files Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts’s “Assault-Style” Firearms Ban

Thursday, August 21, 2025

NRA Files Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts’s “Assault-Style” Firearms Ban

Today, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners’ Action League, Pioneer Valley Arms, three NRA members, and another individual filed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s ban on “assault-style” firearms.

Tenth Circuit Holds New Mexico’s 7-Day Waiting Period Unconstitutional in NRA Case

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Tenth Circuit Holds New Mexico’s 7-Day Waiting Period Unconstitutional in NRA Case

Today, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases unconstitutional in Ortega v. Grisham, a case brought by the National Rifle Association and Mountain States Legal Foundation, with the ...

Chicago Woman Shot with Stolen Buyback Gun Files Suit

News  

Monday, August 11, 2025

Chicago Woman Shot with Stolen Buyback Gun Files Suit

NRA has often reported on failed “gun buyback” programs in cities across the country as being worse than useless. 

Supreme Court Review Sought in NRA-Backed Challenge to California’s Magazine Ban

Friday, August 15, 2025

Supreme Court Review Sought in NRA-Backed Challenge to California’s Magazine Ban

Today, a Petition for Certiorari was filed asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Duncan v. Bonta, a case—backed by the National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association—challenging California’s prohibition on magazines capable of holding ...

North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in Veto Override Session

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in Veto Override Session

During a veto override session on Tuesday, July 29th, both chambers passed House Bill 193 (H193) and defeated Governor Josh Stein's veto.

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Monday, July 7, 2025

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed the Florida Budget for Fiscal Year 2025–2026, which includes a Second Amendment sales tax holiday from September 8 through December 31, 2025. The NRA is thankful for Governor DeSantis’ strong ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.