• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CA illegally requires SSN for gun purchases

RJB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
imported post

Hello,

I am currently being denied the right to purchase any and all firearms because I refuse to have or use a Social Security number, which no law requires me to have or use to live, work, or exercise my rights in my own state and country.

I have a valid U.S. Passport, obtained with no SSN, a certified copy of my Birth Certificate, issued by a California county where I was born. I have vehicle title and registration documents evidencing residency. I have no felony convictions, nor any other reason to be denied my rights under the 2nd Amendment.

While the States are forbidden from demanding a SSN for gun purchases and concealed carry permits, California gets around the prohibition by requiring one of only two forms of identification, both issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and both requiring a SSN to obtain.

The authority for the demand for SSN is given as Title 42, section 666 of the United States Code, also known as the "Deadeat Dads" law, meant to facilitate the collection of back child support payments. I am not married, never have been, nor am I a father to any child, and most likely never will be, since I am now 51 years old. That law names driver's licenses, but does not name identification cards as being applicable, yet California acts as if the law applies to both, when it clearly only applies to driver's licenses.

This is all a disgusting and cynical effort by the state to circumvent the protection of rights offered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits demanding of SSN's for all but limited, proper, and specified purposes, by demanding identification documents it knows require the SSN, rather than accepting other valid identification, or demanding it directly on their DROS background check forms, which would be blatantly illegal.

I understand that Mike Stollenwerk was successful in California in a similar case, to the extent he was able to resolve the matter without going to court. I would like to have access to his research and filing documents, if possible, in the hopes I can resolve my issue myself, without having to hire an attorney and go to state and then to federal court, which will cost lots of time and money, neither of which I have.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

well, you could email me, but here is the deal - the 9th cir. has a holding in a case cllaed Dittman that Section 7 of the federal privacy act does not apply to states. No other circuit has this view of the law.

You might try state court, or you might try changing the federal court's mind. Both ways will cost lots of $ - like maybe $75,000+ in legal fees.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

I would guess that your best bet would be to find out if you could buy a gun in a neighboring state. I know that in Colorado, a Passport is equal to a driver's licence for purposes of identification.
 

RJB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
imported post

One document I came up with regarding gun purchases in Colorado has an asterisked comment to the effect that California law prohibits California residents from purchasing guns in Colorado.

I am astounded and dumbfounded that California can presume to take away a Citizen's 2nd Amendment right in the first place, holding it hostage to availing oneself of a privilege, by participating in a voluntary Federal benefits program, and using it's number, but it seems totally ridiculous that the state of Colorado would concern itself at all with California law, which has ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION in Colorado!

Here is the excerpt:

[line]

[align=left]COLORADO INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM[/align]

[align=left]BEFORE CALLING THE CBI:[/align]
[align=left]The potential firearm transferee must be present.[/align]
[align=left]The Department of the Treasury Firearms Transaction Record (Form 4473) must be filled out completely by the[/align]
[align=left]transferor. Identification must be verified by the FFL.[/align]
[align=left]1. Have the customer complete the Department of Treasury Form 4473.[/align]
[align=left]A. If the customer’s answers indicate a prohibition, do not call the CBI.[/align]
[align=left]B. Check the DOB. If the customer is under 21 years of age he/she can not purchase a handgun, but can purchase[/align]
[align=left]a long gun.[/align]
[align=left]C. If the customer is 21 years of age, he/she can purchase either a handgun or long gun.[/align]
[align=left]D. If the customer did not write out his/her middle name, or only wrote the initial, request the full middle name.[/align]
[align=left]E. Check the Customers’ State of residence. If customer is not a resident of Colorado they cannot buy a handgun. Colorado residency requirements do not apply for long gun sales.
*Per California law, residents of California cannot purchase any firearms in Colorado.[/align]
[line]

[align=left]
So what does this mean? If they determine you are a California resident they will not allow you to buy a rifle or shotgun in Colorado, but if you are a resident of any other state you can? How does THAT work? [/align]
 

RJB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
imported post

How can Colorado take it upon itself to enforce California law, IN COLORADO?
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
imported post

RJB wrote:
How can Colorado take it upon itself to enforce California law, IN COLORADO?
It's not Colorado--it's federal law. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) prohibits a dealer from selling a firearm to a resident of another state with an exception of rifle or shotgun sales where the applicable state laws of both the state in which the transaction is to occur and the purchaser's state of residence do not prohibit the sale.
 

RJB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
imported post

How can the State of California dictate what I can or cannot do in another state?

How can a state deal with Citizens of other states in ways that result in different treatment, where Citizens of some states are regarded as having more rights than Citizens of others?

This seems to trample asunder the entire concept of sovereignty and jurisdiction!

This is INSANITY!

California law is irrelevant to any other state, because California has NO JURISDICTION outside of California! California law is IRRELEVANT outside of California!

This blurring of jurisdiction is theerasing of state sovereignty.

Under what possible legal concept canone state hold a Citizen to the laws of another state?

What about theConstitutional rights all Americans being guaranteed to be EQUAL, from one state to another?

The bottom line is that I am an AMERICAN, who is in full possession of his Constitutional rights, and yet is being told he cannot purchase a firearm in ANY state, because of the laws in one particular state!

My 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION, which all states have to abide by EQUALLY.

This is unbelievable! I could literally DIE for being deprived of the right and means to defend myself, and for no good reason.
 

RJB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
imported post

When the states begin to recognize and enforce each other's laws, the States, as political entities, become meaningless and irrelevant.

This is just another way to nullify the Constitution, because the Constitution was creates and exists by virtue of ratification by the states. When the states begin to enforce each other's laws, outside of those states, then they behave essentially as one state.

The only crime I am guilty of is not using a damnable federally issued number, which is 100% VOLUNTARY to obtain. How DARE this, or any other government, deprive me of my Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to defend myself, and put my life in jeopardy, just because I will not take or use their damned number!

I hope everyone here can see that this is a prime example of why I believe, with all my heart and soul, that we should ALL be rejecting this number. It is just a way to strip us of our rights, control us, and leave us defenseless.
 

RJB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike,

Could I email you directly?

I did not see an email link for you.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
imported post

I heard that unless a SS number was "Requaired before 1974" you don't have to give it to that "outfit".

I'm sorry I don't have the Code on it, however you should go to the SS department

and ask them, they are the Authority on SSA stuff.

Robin47
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Leave California without the intent to return. Take up residence in another state. Enjoy the liberty that your newstate affords you.If you get sick of your new state go to another state or return to your original state.:)
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

All you people stop tyring to take our people away! We need them here to fight! We are Americans and we don't run, right?

Lets get down to business. .. . I don't recall what forms of ID are needed, but the DL is not needed to prove residence, that is what the utility bill is for, so otherwise I might suggest IIRC that your passport can be used as valid photo ID. IIRC the wording was something like ...government issued ID. . .

I will try and find it...
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

The federal standard is that you must supply any combination of government-issued documents which establish your identity (photo), age, and residency, in order to purchase a firearm from a dealer. A passport is not sufficient because it lacks residency information, although you should be able to supply copies of leases or whatever to establish this. It also states explicitly on form 4473 that providing a SS# is optional. States can have other gun regulations, but I'm sure that it is not enforceable that you supply your SS# for a gun purchase (I think Mike's case was in Virginia). If you have been denied a gun based on this, then congratulations - you now should have standing to pose a legal challenge to this "law."

An interesting, and not unrelated, event came up here recently. An Amish guy wanted to buy a gun but they don't have photo IDs. I called the ATF and they said too bad -no ID, no gun. I'd be curious to see a court ruling on this 1st vs. 2nd amendment problem.

-ljp
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

WVCDL wrote:
RJB wrote:
How can Colorado take it upon itself to enforce California law, IN COLORADO?
It's not Colorado--it's federal law. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) prohibits a dealer from selling a firearm to a resident of another state with an exception of rifle or shotgun sales where the applicable state laws of both the state in which the transaction is to occur and the purchaser's state of residence do not prohibit the sale.
So what you can do is move to another state that respects Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act, make a home there for a spell, buy some guns without disclosing your SSN, if any, and then move back to CA.
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
Legba wrote:
An Amish guy wanted to buy a gun but they don't have photo IDs. I called the ATF and they said too bad -no ID, no gun.
he should buy in a pri9vate sale then - lawful in ohio and most states.
That's true, but he was from out of state and I just work as a dealer, so as an interested party, I didn't encourage him to go to flea markets in his home state. I doubt he'll be reading this forum either.

-ljp
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Well...I was looking through the PC 12071 in relation to what is required. In the actual section of
PC12071 (3)(C) Unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the
firearm presents clear evidence of his or her identity and age to the dealer.
It then later....MUCH later attempts to define "clear evidence"

PC12071(20)(G)(c) (1) As used in this article, "clear evidence of his or her identity and age" means either of the following:
(A) A valid California driver's license.
(B) A valid California identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

California Vehicle Code in relation to needing SSN:
PC12800. Every application for an original or a renewal of a driver's license shall contain all of the following information:
(a) The applicant's true full name, age, sex, mailing address, residence address, and social security account number.
12801. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department shall require an application for a driver's license to contain the applicant's social security account number and any other number or identifier determined to be appropriate by the department.
From what I can tell there is no way around this requirement. I know that when I moved to CA from VA it was a problem. They would not accept my VA DL as valid ID...but then when I got all my proper forms they asked for my VA DL. ...Anyway...I digress....Here is my real problem with this....A SSN was only supposed to be tracking your contributions to the SS.....now it is a personal tracking system...You can't do anything without it.
 

RJB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
imported post

Notice that the citations of California law do NOT state that a Social Security number can be required for a California Identification Card, which is one of the onlytwo forms of identification required for firearms purchases.

Neither does federal law, Title 42, section 666, the so-called "Deadbeat Dads" law, specify that state issued I.D. cards as targeted documents requiring the SSN. They are nowhere mentioned.

So, if neither federal nor statelaw creates a SSN requirement for a California state issued I.D.WHY can't I just get a California I.D. card without a Social Security number and use it for my gun purchases?

Apparently, just because some petty and tyrannical state bureaucrats say so.
 
Top