PDA

View Full Version : What date was it required PPT of pistols thru FFL


Ding126
04-23-2009, 7:04 AM
Trying to find the date of when is was required to do all PPT through a FFL

Quiet
04-23-2009, 7:13 AM
I believe it started in 1991.

Librarian
04-23-2009, 8:29 AM
I believe it started in 1991.

Exactly. 1 January, 1991.

I'm curious - since it's 2009, why is that information useful? I'm just an information collector, so I keep a lot of that stuff around, but for others?

edwardm
04-23-2009, 8:34 AM
Probably because at some time pre- and post- 1/1/91 non-FFL PPT's were done of handguns and now questions of legality (for future sale, inheritance, whatever) are coming to light and folks are worried about it.

I can see how it would have been easy to know that pre-1/1/91 a non-FFL PPT was in the clear, and just as easy to not know that post-1/1/91 an FFL had to be involved.

When I was in college I remember roomates buying handguns post-1/1/91 from sellers who were also unaware of the new FFL/PPT requirement (this was in late '91 through mid-'93).

Exactly. 1 January, 1991.

I'm curious - since it's 2009, why is that information useful? I'm just an information collector, so I keep a lot of that stuff around, but for others?

fairfaxjim
04-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Exactly. 1 January, 1991.

I'm curious - since it's 2009, why is that information useful? I'm just an information collector, so I keep a lot of that stuff around, but for others?

Hmm, let's see. How about, Guy buys gun from another guy without DROS. Guy finds out purchase was illegal. Guy checks and sees that gun was manufactured in 1992. Hoping there should be no paper trail to this one guy checks to see when PPT DROS was enacted. OOPS! :eek:

mofugly13
04-24-2009, 6:27 AM
How about, guy buys gun from another guy without DROS, gun was purchased by first guy in 1974. Second guy learns about DROS requirement years after the fact. Second guy wan'ts to know if he'll get in trouble being in posession of the gun???? Second guy was over 21 when he bought gun, but under 21 when DROS went into effect. Second guy is not a prohibited person.

otteray
04-24-2009, 8:17 AM
Were there exceptions, too; that may have changed more recently?
Example: if a cop was the buyer, when was it required to do a PPT through a FFL ?

Librarian
04-24-2009, 12:29 PM
Were there exceptions, too; that may have changed more recently?
Example: if a cop was the buyer, when was it required to do a PPT through a FFL ?

No exceptions for what your job is.

Intra-familial is a twitch added in 1992, IIRC. 50-year-old long guns were exempt in the 1991 law.

Table Rock Arms
04-25-2009, 8:29 AM
Hmm, let's see. How about, Guy buys gun from another guy without DROS. Guy finds out purchase was illegal. Guy checks and sees that gun was manufactured in 1992. Hoping there should be no paper trail to this one guy checks to see when PPT DROS was enacted. OOPS! :eek:

Would there be a statute of limitations for such an offense?

11Z50
04-25-2009, 8:45 AM
The alleged offense in CA is a wobbler so the statute of limitations would be 3 years + 1 day from the date of alleged offense. I'm not sure on the fed side, but since there is no such thing as DROS in the free world, and people can buy/sell/trade longarms freely in other states I doubt that would be an issue.

Let's say Bob and Tom are old friends. Bob sold Tom his deer rifle which was purchased in 1995 at a gun shop. Bob and Tom decide to not do a DROS, for whatever reason, in 2001. Tom is not a prohibited person. Even though this was an offense in 2001, the statute of limitations expired on the date of sale +1 day in 2004. Since longarms are not required to be registered, Bob or Tom cannot be charged with the DROS violation after 2004, and Tom legally possesses the deer rifle. He can reg it if he wants, but there is no requirement. Even though the rifle was made post 1991, the Gov't still has to prove there was a violation, and when. Unless they can prove a crime happened within the statute of limitations, which they can't, because it didn't, it's over. If for whatever reason Tom is contacted by LE and asked how/where he acquired the rifle, he has no obligation to answer, since there is no violation. Even if they run the weapon's serial number, and it comes back reg'd to someone else, as long as it is not stolen, no violation. If the cops wanted to be jerks, they could try to confiscate the rifle pending further "investigation" and then require Tom to do a DROS to get it back, but that's a stretch.

Unless one bought/sold/traded with an undercover officer at a gun show or a similar scenario the charges would be hard to prove. Still, it's good advice to follow all laws and keep things straight.

gbran
04-25-2009, 11:56 AM
The alleged offense in CA is a wobbler so the statute of limitations would be 3 years + 1 day from the date of alleged offense.

Does the offense end considering the ongoing issues of an unregistered handgun?

ke6guj
04-25-2009, 12:01 PM
Does the offense end considering the ongoing issues of an unregistered handgun?there are no "issues" concerning an unregistered handgun in CA except if you are caught illegally CCW'ing. There is no requirement that a handgun you owe be registered in your name.

laguns
04-25-2009, 5:43 PM
Even if they run the weapon's serial number, and it comes back reg'd to someone else, as long as it is not stolen, no violation. If the cops wanted to be jerks, they could try to confiscate the rifle pending further "investigation" and then require Tom to do a DROS to get it back, but that's a stretch.

Interesting you bring that scenario up. In 1999 my was carrying a Glock in her place of business and the LAPD Gun Unit confiscated it because it wasn't registered to her. She explained to the detective that she holds an FFL and eight other licenses and the gun is logged out to her, but the detective took the gun in anyway. The judge of course ordered the gun be given back, but not before we spent more on an attorney than the gun was worth. Being "jerks" as you put it in your post and confiscating unregistered handguns is LAPD policy to this day from what I'm told.