DOJ Issues “Notice of Modification” to Proposed Ammunition Background Check Regulations

DOJ Issues “Notice of Modification” to Proposed Ammunition Background Check Regulations

Today, the California Department of Justice issued a “Notice of Modification” to their proposed regulations regarding the soon to be implemented ammunition background check procedures. As a result of these changes, a second 15-day public comment period has been initiated. CRPA attorneys, with the support of NRA, are currently reviewing the proposal and will update members on the effect of these changes.

In the meantime, DOJ will be accepting public comments between April 18, 2019, and May 3, 2019. We encourage our members to submit comments on the proposal to the following:

Kelan Lowney
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816-0487


Fax: (916) 227-7615

Make sure to subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts to stay informed on the status of DOJ’s ammunition background check regulations by visiting NRA-ILA’s California webpage and CRPA’s webpage at and


    • Sorry to hear that. We’ve heard the same thing from a few people but the email address has worked when we’ve emailed them in house. Please check the spelling and try again.

  • Blatantly an attack on our 2nd Amendment Rights by Anti-gun interests. It is just another form of “Harassment” on law abiding citizens with one goal in mind…”Banning Guns” in the State of California, which is a clear violation of our rights. California will do anything to try to get our guns, and do NOTHING to take guns away from criminals other than offer “buy back programs” which has done little or nothing to take the guns away from real criminals. How are we supposed to take this any other way, when clearly the laws the current government has “suspended or changed in favor of criminal release including punishment reductions” has done more harm to the safety of our people then taking guns and withholding our ability to purchase ammunition without waiting and being taxed even more to be able to protect our own lives and families from the very criminals they released back into society to rob, steal, and commit even worse crimes? This needs to go to the Supreme Court and it’s time we fight this continual attack on law abiding citizens rights. The real safety issue here is taking our ability to defend ourselves legally and it violates my rights!

  • Unless I am reading it wrong, they REMOVED 03 FFL holders with COE as Exempted Individuals for transactions with Ammunition Vendors.

    Is this section relevant to the mail order exemption?

  • As a law abiding California small business owner, I find some of the proposed changes via the “Notice of Modification” wording to be a problem for my small ammo transfer business. In keeping my business within the proposed new modification, will prove to be challenging, if not expensive. I currently run a small ammo transfer business within my active 03FFL (C&R) holder, as well as a valid CA COE holder, and within the past year, a new CA Ammo Vendor License holder. The proposed change to Section 5, #4306 to allow specifically only 01FFL, 06FFL, 07FFL, and 08FFL troublesome. I have provide CA DOJ, with all the necessary business licensing info, to acquire my Ammo Vendors License, including my active Federal Firearm License, up to date, CA DOJ Certificate of Eligibility, 2019 San Diego Business License, and active CA seller permit. The financial burden of converting my business to an 01FFL is both expensive, and potential illegal, as the ATF instruction for filling out an application for an 01FFL ($300), clearly and plainly state that an 01FFL “ARE NOT LICENSES TO SELL AMMUNITION ONLY”. The state’s financial burden is also prohibitively expensive, as I would have to register and pay a fee to be on the registered CA Licensed Firearm Dealers. The local financial burden within the city of San Diego, is also prohibitively expensive, with the acquisition of a San Diego Police Department Firearm license, ($1,606). I therefor request that the original wording be left as a Federal Firearm License, rather than the restrictive specifically listed Federal Firearm License.



    • Sorry to hear that. We’ve heard the same thing from a few people but the email address has worked when we’ve emailed them in house. Please check the spelling and try again.

  • That’s all government does is add new rules to prevent honest law abiding citizens their rights,,,, they should enforce the laws that are now on the books instead of adding more,,, every time a new rule and orders are added it gives the non abiding person a opportunity to make unlawful money that otherwise would be taxed adding more revenue to the state,, wake up Democrats learn a lesson from the twenties when liqueur was outlawed and made millions to outlaws

  • When are these politicians gonna own up to the fact……… law abiding citizens are not the problem!!! We jump through all the hoops put before us and obey all the laws thrown at us. And, yet the criminal keeps doing what he/she does. They will always get firearms and ammo somewhere. It is a fairy tale if you think you can totally disarm the United States. All you are doing is trying to buy the votes of folks who choose not to be informed and educated. Who lean on fear of what they do not know. It’s all about power and money. Someday, maybe a legally armed citizen of the United States may be the one who helps save a life! Let us enjoy the sport of shooting and hunting. Go after the criminals and 5150’s. Leave law abiding citizens alone.

  • We would need to know what the modifications are before we would be able to comment on them but we all know that whatever they are, they will be passed. Welcome to California.

  • I see this as an attack , once again, against honest gun owners. Criminals will not abide by this or use straw purchasers to get ammo. I use a lot of ammunition at the range and with democrats thinking anyone with more then 12 bullets is a domestic terrorist I take great offense that people think they need to know what’s non of their business.

  • Basic Check, Standard Check and COE. When is one type of check required over the other and when is the COE required? I want to buy ammunition; What will I be required to do (and how much will it cost?). If the COE can be used one time ($1.00) and one of the checks ($1.00 or $19.00) and are only good for 30 days and one purchase, I’m not sure just how this will work.

  • This new background check will unfortunately have little effect except to divert DOJ time and resources from fighting actual crime. I think most people savvy to gun crime know this, so the best way to modify it is to shave it down as much as possible. It’s just more hoops for legit gun owners to jump through and criminalize them if they fun afoul of a detail of this and the wave of every other sounds gun good law that will come through our anti-gun legislature and now governor. At what point does the second amendment simply get trashed completely?

  • I read the Notice of Modification and I am unclear on the difference between when the $1 fee and $19 fee applies. It is obvious that the $1 fee applies for each individual sale, but when the $19 applies is ambiguous.

    Also, once a record is established, if a person changes their phone number, address or name (by marriage or divorce, for example) their records will no longer match the eligibility check. Is there provision for updating this information?

    And, the fee amounts are predicated on the estimated ammunition purchases. However, most of us have been stocking up on ammo and won’t be making purchases for a long time under the new system. Will this give the state and excuse to raise the fees to outrageous levels?

  • Dear Sacramento. What’s next? Limit on amount you can buy? Limited to only calibers of guns you have registered? Please stop infringing on the rights of good people and focus on tougher punishment for people that commit crimes! Maybe fix the mental health system while you are at it! 99% of gun owners are NOT criminals!! Stop treating us like we are!!🇺🇸

  • Thank you for staying on top of this set of regulations. I do not think it will impact me as much as the state hoped it would, but it’s all in the details. Thank you once again.

  • The email address listed here causes my message to be bounced back with the response:

    The email address you entered couldn’t be found. Please check the recipient’s email address and try to resend the message. If the problem continues, please contact your email admin.

  • I tend to agree with the “anti-gun people”. If we outlaw guns and ammo, there won’t be any “gun violence”. We should do like Mexico and outlaw private ownership. It sure has been successful in Mexico. Sorry…this is a sore subject with me. Not too many people getting shot in Sri-Lanka lately, either.

  • The e-mail worked for me.
    @Adam. Yes you read that correctly, 03FFL will not be allowed to order/receive ammo via the internet, if approved, even with an ammo license.

  • It’s all about control for the democrat party. They want to control every aspect of your life whether you need their assistants financially or not. Sick people!!

  • This reminds me of Leland Yee because this is a bonanza for criminals willing to drive out of state, buy ammo in bulk, drive back in to sell to their buddies at a huge profit. Leland Yee wanted to make everything illegal so he could grab a piece of the underground market he and his cohorts would be enlarging by inflicting unacceptable bans and restrictions on the law abiding. Clearly Politicians have demonstrated that they have no concern with crime reduction or the will of the people branding themselves domestic enemies of we the People and automatically voided their authority.

  • Another anti-2nd Amendment work-around. Make purchasing ammunition more expensive and difficult to do is easier than banning guns outright.
    If Calufornia required motorists take and pass a driver’s test at gas stations each and everytime they wanted to fuel up, there would be an uproar of epic proportions. Guns…who cares? People give away other’s rights and are unwittingly putting there own at future risk.

  • Ha hah! Advocating the need for ammo background checks is an admission that gun-control does not work as advertised. Checks or no checks, criminals will continue to buy or steal ammunition for the guns they supposedly don’t possess. The DOJ sales database will, once hacked, will make it easier for thieves to locate the homes of gun owners.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



February 20, 2020


CRPA 1st Responders Appreciation BBQ

Thank you for being our local heroes!

August 05, 2018

CRPA Firing Line Magazine

CRPA Firing Line: May/June 2018 Issue

May 1, 2018