PDA

View Full Version : No PPT with Bullet Button


Skipper
05-06-2009, 2:37 PM
Just got home from the local gun shop. While I was there, two guys brought in an AR-15 with bullet button, wanting to do a PPT. The shop owner refused........when I asked about it, he said that he knew it was legal, but he had received notification from the DOJ that they strongly recommended against it.

Anyone heard anything about this going on?

ChuckBooty
05-06-2009, 2:43 PM
I know of another shop who will sell lowers but won't sell complete rifles. The DOJ who inspected them told them that they will be "liable" for selling any complete rifles in the state. This is a pretty common tactic from the DOJ. And to be honest, it was probably just not worth it for the store owner to be on the DOJ's "bad side" for a ten-dollar profit.

shooting4life
05-06-2009, 2:44 PM
:fud:

BONECUTTER
05-06-2009, 2:44 PM
:beatdeadhorse5::bofud:

Look any gunshop that calls the DOJ will get the. We don't know...if you have any doubts what so ever do not transfer the weapon.

This is the same thing they did before OLL's.

JDay
05-06-2009, 2:44 PM
I know of another shop who will sell lowers but won't sell complete rifles. The DOJ who inspected them told them that they will be "liable" for selling any complete rifles in the state. This is a pretty common tactic from the DOJ. And to be honest, it was probably just not worth it for the store owner to be on the DOJ's "bad side" for a ten-dollar profit.

This needs to be the next lawsuit against the state. Well, either this or a challenge to the AWB.

bodger
05-06-2009, 2:45 PM
Just got home from the local gun shop. While I was there, two guys brought in an AR-15 with bullet button, wanting to do a PPT. The shop owner refused........when I asked about it, he said that he knew it was legal, but he had received notification from the DOJ that they strongly recommended against it.

Anyone heard anything about this going on?

Haven't heard of it but it doesn't surprise me.
I can't think of anything that would please the antis more than having "strongly recommend against it" become a regulatory substitution for actual legislation.

7x57
05-06-2009, 2:50 PM
...he had received notification from the DOJ that they strongly recommended against it.

Anyone heard anything about this going on?

Did he also say that he knew private gun ownership was legal but the DOJ recommended strongly against it?

7x57

bwiese
05-06-2009, 2:57 PM
Just got home from the local gun shop. While I was there, two guys brought in an AR-15 with bullet button, wanting to do a PPT. The shop owner refused........when I asked about it, he said that he knew it was legal, but he had received notification from the DOJ that they strongly recommended against it.

Anyone heard anything about this going on?

That can just be field agent misinformation.
These people are not Nobel laureates. Seems to be a new batch of 'em

Simple fix:
- dude hands upper to buyer.
- strips lower of pistol grip and telestock and BB;
- lower is PPT'd to new buyer via FFL.

bodger
05-06-2009, 3:01 PM
Did he also say that he knew private gun ownership was legal but the DOJ recommended strongly against it?

7x57

:clap::clap:

dac41
05-06-2009, 3:03 PM
Just got home from the local gun shop. While I was there, two guys brought in an AR-15 with bullet button, wanting to do a PPT. The shop owner refused........when I asked about it, he said that he knew it was legal, but he had received notification from the DOJ that they strongly recommended against it.

Anyone heard anything about this going on?

Gun dealers should be used to dealing with BS and government shenanigans. . . For this I think that a lot of them are total pussies! This guy at Grundman's in Rio Dell gave me a long sob story about how scared he was the DOJ might change laws in the future. I should maybe send some diapers for their staff.

Bottom Line, gun dealers are supposed to be on OUR side.

bodger
05-06-2009, 3:10 PM
That can just be field agent misinformation.
These people are not Nobel laureates. Seems to be a new batch of 'em

Simple fix:
- dude hands upper to buyer.
- strips lower of pistol grip and telestock and BB;
- lower is PPT'd to new buyer via FFL.

Gun dealers should be used to dealing with BS and government shenanigans. . . For this I think that a lot of them are total pussies! This guy at Grundman's in Rio Dell gave me a long sob story about how scared he was the DOJ might change laws in the future. I should maybe send some diapers for their staff.

Bottom Line, gun dealers are supposed to be on OUR side.

And when they cave in like the dealer in the OP who KNEW it was legal but decided to appease the DOJ and their stupid "recommendation", it continues to give the DOJ powers they don't really have and undermines the lawful gunowner's rights.
AND, the more this gun shop owner allows this to happen (adhering to recommendations instead of laws) the less like he is to stay in business.

I accept that it is any gun shop's right to conduct business as they see fit (as long as it conforms to the laws), but yeah, I thought they were on our side too!

ChuckBooty
05-06-2009, 3:10 PM
Gun dealers should be used to dealing with BS and government shenanigans. . . For this I think that a lot of them are total pussies! This guy at Grundman's in Rio Dell gave me a long sob story about how scared he was the DOJ might change laws in the future. I should maybe send some diapers for their staff.

Bottom Line, gun dealers are supposed to be on OUR side.

Some are on our side...but sadly many are not. These are the same people charging fifteen dollars for a box of Wolf (20) 7.62x39 because "Obama is gonna git it". These are the same people who charge outrageous prices for out of state transfers and PPT transfers because it threatens to put them out of business for selling WAYYYY over market value cuz "Obama is gonna git it". I have ONE SHOP that I'll go to, and that's Faith Armory (I guess I shouldn't say one...but one LOCAL shop). The other two in the area are our enemy...believe me.

Corbin Dallas
05-06-2009, 3:21 PM
Can I play devils advocate here?

If it means putting a roof over your head and food on the plate, would YOU risk your job for it?

If the guy says no, just say thanks and find someone else. Those who feel diapers are in order... maybe you just need some time in the corner to think about it.

Put the shoe on the other foot. The DOJ "strongly recommends..." and the DOJ has the power to revoke your license if the department sees fit. Are you willing to risk your entire livelyhood for the sake of bucking the system?

If so, remind me NOT to go into business with you.

rkt88edmo
05-06-2009, 3:26 PM
Anyone heard anything about this going on?

I'd say we hear about things like this going on all the time. There are plenty of FFLs who will do the transfer.

Two weeks!

bodger
05-06-2009, 3:47 PM
Can I play devils advocate here?

If it means putting a roof over your head and food on the plate, would YOU risk your job for it?

If the guy says no, just say thanks and find someone else. Those who feel diapers are in order... maybe you just need some time in the corner to think about it.

Put the shoe on the other foot. The DOJ "strongly recommends..." and the DOJ has the power to revoke your license if the department sees fit. Are you willing to risk your entire livelyhood for the sake of bucking the system?

If so, remind me NOT to go into business with you.

But what system are they bucking? The system that the DOJ wants to foment which is that their strong recommendations against something are as good as citing an actual law?
I understand your point and your perspective. But, when "if they see fit" is legal cause for the DOJ to revoke anything, you can say goodbye to your guns along with whatever they see fit for you not to have, even if it isn't breaking any law.

If they strongly recommend that gun shops no longer sell ammunition and all gun shops decide it would be prudent to follow that advice for fear of losing their licenses, and all gun sales follow, what kind of business will a gun shop have left to do anyway?

I don't expect the gun shop owners to be poster boys for the 2nd amendment, but if they lose sight of the fact that the
2nd amendment is what allows them to be in business in the first place, the powers that wannabe will chip away at them.

Like I said though, I do see your point and it is a valid flip side to my argument, and demonstrates that this type of thing is a tough call for a gun dealer, even if they are against gun control.

MasterYong
05-06-2009, 3:58 PM
Just got home from the local gun shop. While I was there, two guys brought in an AR-15 with bullet button, wanting to do a PPT. The shop owner refused........when I asked about it, he said that he knew it was legal, but he had received notification from the DOJ that they strongly recommended against it.

Anyone heard anything about this going on?

I have seen, in three months, two complete rifles with Bullet Buttons in my local shop. The owner was selling them as PPTs on consignment. The first one belonged to a local LEO, and the second belonged to that LEOs best friend!

The LEO was selling his because he owned two, but the dept would only allow him to qualify with one (not sure if I'm using the correct language here, I'm no cop), so he sold the other one because he didn't need two. I don't know why his friend was selling his...

I know that LEOs aren't exactly the best place to go for legal advice- but that experience is what actually prompted me to bite the bullet and start my AR builds! At least I know the the LEOs in my area are informed of the OLL situation, even if many in the rest of the PRK aren't.

bohoki
05-06-2009, 4:28 PM
call the doj and inform them that this dealer wouldnt do a ppt on a rifle

garandguy10
05-06-2009, 4:31 PM
call the doj and inform them that this dealer wouldnt do a ppt on a rifle

And what would this accomplish? does the firearms dealer not have the right to refuse?

Corbin Dallas
05-06-2009, 4:37 PM
But what system are they bucking? The system that the DOJ wants to foment which is that their strong recommendations against something are as good as citing an actual law?

I understand your point and your perspective. But, when "if they see fit" is legal cause for the DOJ to revoke anything, you can say goodbye to your guns along with whatever they see fit for you not to have, even if it isn't breaking any law.

If they strongly recommend that gun shops no longer sell ammunition and all gun shops decide it would be prudent to follow that advice for fear of losing their licenses, and all gun sales follow, what kind of business will a gun shop have left to do anyway?

I don't expect the gun shop owners to be poster boys for the 2nd amendment, but if they lose sight of the fact that the
2nd amendment is what allows them to be in business in the first place, the powers that wannabe will chip away at them.

Like I said though, I do see your point and it is a valid flip side to my argument, and demonstrates that this type of thing is a tough call for a gun dealer, even if they are against gun control.

Be assured that building a OLL is still a "GRAY AREA" for many. We are walking a fine line that in reality is up to the AG on its legality.

Let's say for instance you are stopped by a LEO for whatever reason. This same LEO gets notice of your black rifle. Although you are certain your rifle is configured legally, the LEO is not so convinced. Argue all you want, that LEO is taking your weapon and you can jump through all the hoops you want spending all kind of time and money to get your "legally configured" weapon back.

If the DOJ want's to make it difficult for the gun shop owner, they can do so. Just as if the LEO want's to make it difficult for the black rifle owner, they can. It's not a matter of "LAW", it's more a matter of CYA.

bohoki
05-06-2009, 4:47 PM
And what would this accomplish? does the firearms dealer not have the right to refuse?

actually no they are required to do ppt by law

WokMaster1
05-06-2009, 4:58 PM
And what would this accomplish? does the firearms dealer not have the right to refuse?

No, the dealer has to handle long gun PPTs if he sells long guns. He doesn't have to do PPTs for handguns if he does not sell them.

Bohoki is just poking fun. Just want to see what the DOJ auditors or desk jockeys would say. They'll probably say the above, like I said but wonder what they'll say when OLLs are mentioned.;):p

5thstreet@sbcglobal.net
05-06-2009, 5:06 PM
Correct me if Im wrong but isn't illegal for an FFL to refuse the PPT of any legal firearm?

Mute
05-06-2009, 5:56 PM
I wish we can put some names to this activity. If the DOJ refuses to take an official stance on the BB then their people need to STFU about it all together even when they're out visiting FFLs.

We need a way to file individual lawsuits against these agents for interfering in legal commerce.

bodger
05-06-2009, 6:13 PM
Be assured that building a OLL is still a "GRAY AREA" for many. We are walking a fine line that in reality is up to the AG on its legality.

Let's say for instance you are stopped by a LEO for whatever reason. This same LEO gets notice of your black rifle. Although you are certain your rifle is configured legally, the LEO is not so convinced. Argue all you want, that LEO is taking your weapon and you can jump through all the hoops you want spending all kind of time and money to get your "legally configured" weapon back.

If the DOJ want's to make it difficult for the gun shop owner, they can do so. Just as if the LEO want's to make it difficult for the black rifle owner, they can. It's not a matter of "LAW", it's more a matter of CYA.
That is what scares me about having a black rifle in this state, even though mine is configured in such a way as to be legal.
I hate GRAY areas.

Some prisons are painted gray on the inside, aren't they?

If it truly is an issue of CYA, then the only safe way to play it would be to keep a revolver by the nightstand and never leave the house with it.

I guess it's a delicate balance of keeping up the fight, but picking the individual battles carefully.

Trader Jack
05-06-2009, 9:56 PM
actually no they are required to do ppt by law

There are a few ways to get around that "must do" and there are more then a few dealers that get around it in a legal maner.:chris:

DDT
05-06-2009, 10:02 PM
Can I play devils advocate here?

If it means putting a roof over your head and food on the plate, would YOU risk your job for it?

If the guy says no, just say thanks and find someone else. Those who feel diapers are in order... maybe you just need some time in the corner to think about it.

Put the shoe on the other foot. The DOJ "strongly recommends..." and the DOJ has the power to revoke your license if the department sees fit. Are you willing to risk your entire livelyhood for the sake of bucking the system?

If so, remind me NOT to go into business with you.

The problem is that you are REQUIRED to use an FFL to do the PPT and for purposes of doing a PPT the FFL is acting as an agent of the government. Would you give the same advice to someone who waited in line at the DMV just to be told by the person behind the counter that they don't feel comfortable registering a car to them because they already have a car or because the registration address is different than their DL address? Just go find another DMV office.

lomalinda
05-06-2009, 10:04 PM
There's a store in Glendale where the moron expects you to sign a statement claiming that you will not use the lower in an AR-15 build.

LOL

Maestro Pistolero
05-06-2009, 10:18 PM
Bear with me, I've been out of CA for ten years. In a PPT case like this, when the transfer is approved for the buyer, wouldn't the DOJ know what type of weapon they are approving for transfer? Once approved, how can they un-approve the sale, or prosecute someone for a sale they approved?

Hypothetical question:

Prior to taking possession of an off list handgun from out of state, a law abiding California resident, not disqualified from owning a handgun, voluntarily registers it via PPT paperwork. Once the registration was accepted by the State, would he/she then have a legal right to possess it?

Tillers_Rule
05-06-2009, 10:29 PM
WOW, so now the DOJ is using strong arm tactics to intimidate retailers because they don't like the way the law is written??