These two people did not spend as much money on their guns and ammunition as everybody has been estimating. They got it all super cheap.

$5K? $10k?. The truth is that most Americans can still buy a fair amount of weapons with their credit card and if your ultimate goal is to die or locked up after the shooting, who cares if you can't really afford the buy.

I have yet to see anyone making the cost argument. Accessibility is the main issue with guns not cost

People on DU have been asking how they afforded the cost of the weapons and ammunition, thinking they spent in excess of $10K.

Most likely, a couple of credit cards maxed out and they had everything.

If the couple bought firearms from Buds or CtD, those weapons would have been mailed to an FFL dealer. That's the law (and no way either of those firms, who are major players in the field, would risk being shut down by ATF for ignoring that law). They may have been purchasing accessories, too.

Early on in the reporting, I read that the rifles were bought by someone else, and given to the couple. Haven't seen that narrative since, though.

On the weapons, kind of interesting. Now will come the lies that they purchased the weapons online with no background check. That is against federal law and it needs to be put out. I am more interested in the purchase by the possible other person. It does not seem like they were prohibited persons.

The stuff was shipped to california, and in compliance with california law.

It was assumed they got it from somewhere. It doesn't suprise me that they bought it from a large retailer.

Its as if somebody stabbed somebody with a knife, and a story said they bought it from amazon. Not really a surprise.

... then those guns were shipped to a dealer, who would transfer the guns to the buyer only after completing the required background check and completing the required federal forms, along with completing compliance with any California-specific requirements.

"Gun Show Loopholes" would not apply.

For the other stuff, ammunition, tactical gear, etc, Cheaper Than Dirt will comply with any California requirements. I don't think there are federal requirements for those items.

I replaced my ALICE pack and frame about 12 years ago (back when the wife and I still had delusions of going camping/getting vacations etc). It's under my bed at this moment, next to my rolling bin of oil paints.
I bought East German surplus magazine pouches (FWIW, 1 rain pattern that holds 4 30 rounders and 1 rain pattern that holds 4 40 rounders). I converted them to tool pouches that I wore at work at ALCOA for years. As they held tools up to a foot in length and were closable, they were handy as hell for those of us who had to climb into and all over large machinery.

Tactical gear/Military surplus/Historical military gear/last generation police gear is not too hard to get. A lot of people own it for a lot of different reasons.

If you have a beef, take it up with the CA legislature.