Outta state PPT.

[5150Marcelo]

I used the search, and it doesnt seem to be working right now. Just a quick question.
My cousin has a ruger 10/22 in AZ. He doesnt want it anymore and is gonna let me have it. He IS coming to CA to visit family, and is gonna bring it with him.
All we gotta do is go to a FFL and do the regular PPT right. We WILL both be present. Just making sure.
I dont want any 'surprises' popping up just cuz he is from outta state.

[ke6guj]

AFAIK, it is not a regular PPT since your cousin probably doesn't have a CA DL. So, it would need to be transfered through the FFL, and the FFL is not limited to the $35 PPT.

[Librarian]

Right. PPT is between two California residents ONLY. Interstate transfer, in most cases, REQUIRES a receiving FFL in the state of residence of the receiver, per Federal law. [18 USC 922 (a)(3) and (a)(5)]

[5150Marcelo]

Crap. Thanks. What if...

he bought the rifle in AZ. But also has his CA DL?

[Hunter]

Right. PPT is between two California residents ONLY. Interstate transfer, in most cases, REQUIRES a receiving FFL in the state of residence of the receiver, per Federal law. [18 USC 922 (a)(3) and (a)(5)]


Wait a minute. First CA law PC 12082 doesn't state private sales can only be between residents and that is where the $10 fee is set. The CA resident issue is actually having to do with the BUYER needing a CA -DL or CA-ID to run a DROS. If it is a handgun sale, then the buyer also needs to be a resident per law. There is no CA id requirement for the seller as the DROS is not run on the seller, nor is there a residency requirement for the seller.

[Librarian]

Wait a minute. First CA law PC 12082 doesn't state private sales can only be between residents and that is where the $10 fee is set. The CA resident issue is actually having to do with the BUYER needing a CA -DL or CA-ID to run a DROS. If it is a handgun sale, then the buyer also needs to be a resident per law. There is no CA id requirement for the seller as the DROS is not run on the seller, nor is there a residency requirement for the seller.

CA DROS is not relevant to Federal law. Look up the cited sections here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

See also http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1031661&postcount=15

[Hunter]

CA DROS is not relevant to Federal law. Look up the cited sections here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

The transaction has to happen thru a FFL per Federal law and CA law. What I stated was incorrect is the requirement that the seller has to be a CA resident. They donot for a PPT in front of a FFL dealer in CA. Only the buyer needs to be able to run a DROS and therefore needs either a CA-DL or CA-ID. If the purchase is indeed a handgun, then the buyer also needs to be a resident.

What am I missing? Are you saying that the transfer using the CA-FFL dealer does not satisfy the Federal law for conducting these thru a FFL?

[Librarian]

The transaction has to happen thru a FFL per Federal law and CA law. What I stated was incorrect is the requirement that the seller has to be a CA resident. They donot for a PPT in front of a FFL dealer in CA. Only the buyer needs to be able to run a DROS and therefore needs either a CA-DL or CA-ID. If the purchase is indeed a handgun, then the buyer also needs to be a resident.

What am I missing?

That the CA resident is not allowed to receive a weapon from out of state - it has to come from an in-state FFL, as in from the FFL's stock. Only an FFL can receive a firearm directly from out of state.

(Almost always - there are exceptions not applicable here) it MUST be

Out of state to CA FFL stock

CA FFL stock to CA resident

PPT does not have the weapon go TO the FFL, just THROUGH the FFL, as an escrow agent. If PPT went TO the FFL, then the Roster of Handguns would apply (to handgun sales, of course, not the 10/22 in question here).

[Solidsnake87]

So if I had a friend buy a Mark 23 pistol out of state, and he did the PPT in parts, I could PPT the pistol to myself?

[Hunter]

That the CA resident is not allowed to receive a weapon from out of state - it has to come from an FFL, as in from the FFL's stock. Only an FFL can receive a firearm directly from out of state.

(Almost always - there are exceptions not applicable here) it MUST be

Out of state to CA FFL stock

CA FFL stock to CA resident

PPT does not have the weapon go TO the FFL, just THROUGH the FFL, as an escrow agent. If PPT went TO the FFL, then the Roster of Handguns would apply.


I read this as the out of state owner is coming into CA and the CA-Buyer and the AZ-Seller are going to do the transaction thru a CA-FFL. This satisfies both CA and Federal laws. Where does the law says it must come from a dealers stock? The law says transaction must be thru dealer and then and only then does the buyer take posession.

As for PPT paperwork, please tell me how the actual federal paperwork trail varies from a "dealer transfer" vs "ppt". Short answer is it doesn't. Exactly the same records are kept on the movement of said firearm.

[ke6guj]

CA law may or may not prohibit an out of state PPT by specific PC, but AFAIK, the DROS computers will only accept a CA DL/ID for the seller's info. And if you can't enter the correct out of state info, then you can't process the PPT.

If out-of-state PPTs were legal, it would open up a lot of off-roster imports and that hasn't happened. Think about it, remember those $1500-2000 HK45s, think anybody would pay that if they could just tell a friend "next time you come visit me, I would like to buy that used HK45 you just bought".

[Librarian]

ATF's FAQ (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm) says (B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? [Back]

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State? [Back]

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]

Now, I see a difference between "FROM the dealer" and "at the dealer". But I'm not an FFL holder, in CA or anyplace else, so I might be wrong.

But in any case, an interstate transfer is not a California PPT. As both ke6guj and I have already pointed out, PPT is exempt from the Roster of Handguns, while interstate transfers are not. California sees PPT as different from an interstate transfer; certainly at all the PPTs I've participated in, the dealer required the seller's CA DL - reasonable, because PC 12082 says, in part If the dealer cannot legally deliver the firearm to
the purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the firearm,
the dealer shall forthwith, without waiting for the conclusion of the
waiting period described in Sections 12071 and 12072, return the
firearm to the transferor or seller or the person loaning the
firearm. The dealer shall not return the firearm to the seller or
transferor or the person loaning the firearm when to do so would
constitute a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 12072. It looks like to return the gun, if the buyer fails the background check, requires the dealer to run a background check on the seller.

[Hunter]

ATF's FAQ (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm) says

Now, I see a difference between "FROM the dealer" and "at the dealer". But I'm not an FFL holder, in CA or anyplace else, so I might be wrong.

In any PPT the FFL takes posession of the firearm, just as they would if the gun is shipped in via UPS. Every gun received by any means is logged into and out of the FFL's bound book. So the buyer is indeed receiving the firearm from the FFL and not the seller in ALL cases here in CA.


But in any case, an interstate transfer is not a California PPT. As both ke6guj and I have already pointed out, PPT is exempt from the Roster of Handguns, while interstate transfers are not.
I agree 100% with these statements, but it really isn't germain to the discussion here. Especially since we are talking about a Ruger 10-22 rifle.


California sees PPT as different from an interstate transfer; certainly at all the PPTs I've participated in, the dealer required the seller's CA DL - reasonable, because PC 12082 says, in part It looks like to return the gun, if the buyer fails the background check, requires the dealer to run a background check on the seller.

First, the DROS is run on the buyer only for normal transactions. If that DROS comes back denied, then yes the seller would need to be in a position to have the DROS run on them to receive their firearm back. Otherwise the FFL could not deliver it to them and the seller would need to make arraingements in their own state to have a FFL receive the rifle back.

[Librarian]

My reference to the Roster was merely evidence that CA thinks PPT and interstate transfer are different; already said the Roster didn't apply to a 10/22.

OK, then. I think this summarizes:

"PPT" and "Private Party Transfer" are specific things within California law.

Despite the facts here of one private individual selling to another private individual, correctly through an FFL, because it is an interstate transfer, it is not a California PPT.

I certainly don't see any problems making the sale.

It's in the same general category as clip vs magazine, except anything that involves BATF and CADOJ is a bit more significant.

[Librarian]

I read this as the out of state owner is coming into CA and the CA-Buyer and the AZ-Seller are going to do the transaction thru a CA-FFL. This satisfies both CA and Federal laws. Where does the law says it must come from a dealers stock? The law says transaction must be thru dealer and then and only then does the buyer take posession.

Questions, because I really don't know:

What is the difference between 'in a dealer's stock' and 'logged into [and out of] the FFL's bound book'?

From a non-FFL's point of view, those look equivalent to me, though the phrasing is quite different.

Related: In what manner are firearms logged in the bound book distinguished, as
a gun held for PPT vs
a gun held by the dealer for sale vs
a gun received from out of state and intended for a particular individual?

[Quiet]

So if I had a friend buy a Mark 23 pistol out of state, and he did the PPT in parts, I could PPT the pistol to myself?

NO.

[FortCourageArmory]

Questions, because I really don't know:

What is the difference between 'in a dealer's stock' and 'logged into [and out of] the FFL's bound book'?

From a non-FFL's point of view, those look equivalent to me, though the phrasing is quite different.

Related: In what manner are firearms logged in the bound book distinguished, as
a gun held for PPT vs
a gun held by the dealer for sale vs
a gun received from out of state and intended for a particular individual?
To answer your question in the short...none. Whether I get a gun from a private individual through the mail or he physically brings it in to the store, it all goes in my A&D book the same way. PPTs are not available to out-of-staters. When I enter the seller's info into the DOJ system, it only accepts a CADL/CAID number.

[ke6guj]

Thanks for the info. Thats what I thought, that federally there was no difference. Just on the state side because PPT has a specific procedure and benefits for the consumer, (ie: exempt from roster, 30 day limit, and limited to $35)

Now, the question needs to be, does the PC allow for the CADOJ to limit PPTs to CA-resident sellers, or is that an underground regulation?

[5150Marcelo]

ummmmm... so I can, or cant do this? :confused::p:eek::p:confused:

[Quiet]

ummmmm... so I can, or cant do this? :confused::p:eek::p:confused:

You can do this.
However, the CA 01-FFL dealer will charge more to transfer it, since it is an out-of-state transfer.