PDA

View Full Version : For FFLs, about PPTs...


juvethefish
05-13-2009, 1:38 AM
I would like to purchase a couple of guns from a friend. The problem is that the guns belonged to her now-deceased fiance. My friend is unsure if the guns are registered (but I assume that they were considering their spouse was active military).

I know I will have to go through a FFL at some point, but how would I go about obtaining these firearms legally?

Thanks in advance.

FortCourageArmory
05-13-2009, 12:59 PM
Well, the most obvious obstacle I see is the firearms don't legally belong her. She doesn't have the authority to dispose of them unless she is the executor of his estate.

halifax
05-13-2009, 1:08 PM
Fiance? If no one is contesting her right to "inherit" them and no one has reported the handguns stolen, she could sell them to you via a face-to-face transfer through an FFL dealer.

I'm only a dealer, not a lawyer though.

kemasa
06-22-2009, 6:27 PM
The firearms could be transfered in many ways, but that does not make it legal. If the FFL knew the story, they should not conduct the transfer as she does not legally own the firearm.

If you want to do it legally, then the person's next of kin needs to allow it and the court/estate would need to transfer the firearms. If the person had no family, then legally the property would belong to the state.

tenpercentfirearms
06-25-2009, 8:08 AM
The legal way is messy. The easiest way is to simply have her take them in as if she were the owner and PPT them. The less you tell the dealer the better.

I get the impression the DOJ really doesn't care about technicalities too much as long as guns are getting registered.

kemasa
06-25-2009, 12:48 PM
Do you really think that it is a good idea to promote violating the law? Yes, the legal way is messy, but it is the way that it should be done.

In this case the CA DOJ may not care as it does not matter to them who legally owns it, but if the rightful parties find out and can prove that the FFL knew what the deal was, the legal liability would be great, as well as possible criminal charges from the local DA.

Super Spy
06-25-2009, 1:11 PM
If there are legal heirs and they cooperate that would be the cleanest. If not the idea of the state getting anything is utterly reprehensible.....keep your moth shut and do as 10% suggests.

tenpercentfirearms
06-25-2009, 11:10 PM
Do you really think that it is a good idea to promote violating the law? Yes, the legal way is messy, but it is the way that it should be done.If you say so. Knowing what I know now about our state laws and the government, sometimes it is foolish to follow the law and smarter to just use common sense and get the job done. Of course your legal matters are your business and everyone must choose their own actions and face the consequences.

In this hypothetical situation, I am assuming that the deceased didn't have a problem with the fiance disposing of the firearms or at least she checked with the family. It would be a good idea for the purchaser to make sure this is the case.

kemasa
06-26-2009, 8:44 AM
I think that you are missing the point in some respect. It is a bad idea to promote violating the law on a public forum, especially when your name is your business domain name.

You do know what happens when you assume things, don't you?

tenpercentfirearms
06-26-2009, 1:00 PM
I think that you are missing the point in some respect. It is a bad idea to promote violating the law on a public forum, especially when your name is your business domain name.

You do know what happens when you assume things, don't you?

Again, if you say so. I don't mind telling people their options. I tell them what is legal and what is not. If they decide to do something illegal, I have nothing to do with it.

In the end, no one gives a damn except people on the web who think someone gives a damn.

kemasa
06-26-2009, 4:57 PM
Except for the anti-gun people who come across posts where you suggest illegal acts and use it against the pro-gun side. I am sorry that you don't understand this and that it is important to consider this.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2009, 11:20 AM
Except for the anti-gun people who come across posts where you suggest illegal acts and use it against the pro-gun side. I am sorry that you don't understand this and that it is important to consider this.

False argument. Show just one documented case of an anti-gunner using a discussion board discussion against the pro-gun side. All I need is one. The fact is no one cares, except you.

Sorry, I don't buy it that anti-gunners cruise this board and now they are going to try and make follow up legislation that makes it harder for fiancÚs from PPTing their dead lovers guns.

If handguns, the guns will be properly tracked and on the grid when they are DROSed. That is really the only thing that is important to the DOJ. How do I know? I have had phone conversations with them on subjects that mirror this. They pretty much admited to me that they do not prosecute or go after people who do a self-registration paperwork instead of a PPT. I stated, "So in other words it is better to have some paperwork on them than none at all?" Their response, "yes."

That is something you don't understand as a non-dealer who does not deal with the DOJ. They are a limited government beauracracy with limited resources and a limited budget. They are not a super human organization that seeks to go after every little law breaker in the world.

Most of them are decent people who are just trying to do their jobs and they understand that California law is confusing and difficult to understand. As long as you are trying to do the right thing, they don't seem to care so much.

Does that mean dealers are treated the same way? Not necessarily. However, as a private individual, the DOJ is not going to come after you for PPTing guns that your dead fiancÚ might or might not have left to you.

It absolutely amazes me as a gun dealer hearing how many people have guns that are still assault weapons or were never properly transfered. There are hundreds of thousands of these guns out there. And the DOJ is going to go after someone who PPTs a gun that maybe shouldn't have been PPTed?

The anti-gunners are going to read this and base all new legislation off of it?

Are you serious?

kemasa
06-27-2009, 12:05 PM
How about you proving that anti-gun people have not printed out messages from forums and talked to elected officials and got them to change the law due to that?

It is not about PPT and dead lovers, it is about how firearms people are viewed and the clear sign that you don't care about the law.

And now, the proof that you choose to not read. You state "That is something you don't understand as a non-dealer who does not deal with the DOJ." This is a completely FALSE statement. Do I really need to point out the obvious to you which shows that it is false?

Why does it amaze you that there are a-salt weapons out there which are not registered? It does not suprise me at all. Did the CA DOJ send out a letter to everyone who has ever filled out a DROS form? Nope. Has the CA DOJ sent out a letter to everyone in the state, including people as they move into the state? Nope. So, how exactly would a person know that they are supposed to register the firearm unless they keep on on things in forums, email lists, etc. Many people don't know because they have not been informed of the change/addition to the CA Penal Code.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2009, 12:50 PM
How about you proving that anti-gun people have not printed out messages from forums and talked to elected officials and got them to change the law due to that?

It is not about PPT and dead lovers, it is about how firearms people are viewed and the clear sign that you don't care about the law.

There you go again. I just did an exhaustive Internet search and found no evidence that anti-gunenrs have used web discussion board technicalty discussion to influence new legislation. Done. Now you are wrong and look dumb until you give an example that proves me wrong. When will you learn?

So how are we being viewed here? The guns are being run through the PPT process in compliance with general law. The anti gunners are going to run out and say that the proper executor of the estate didn't do it so that proves we can't be trusted to have guns as an invididual right to keep and bear arms? Are you listening to yourself.

NO ONE CARES ABOUT THIS BS! Only you and only me because I am bored. Everyone else is out shooting, getting laid, or watching a movie. Even the anti-gunners don't care about this. They just want to see all guns go away. They know they won't be able to convince America the reason why guns should go away is certain gun people did a PPT instead of going through the estate. Hell Feinstein even backed down from the AWB because she knew what a fight it was going to be. Are you telling me our discussion here of an extremely technical nature is going to convince legislators and the general public that we are out of control and lead to new legislation?

Get serious. No one cares about these hypotheticals except us and we only care because it is Saturday and too hot to go Geocaching.

kemasa
06-27-2009, 1:23 PM
You are good!! You can do an exhaustive Internet search and find everything. You really should consider loaning out you services to law enforcement. Imagine being able to show that no one ever printed out something from a forum and used it. I bet you can even find Jimmy Hoffa!! Can you tell me what search engine you used to find out all this information? I gotta try it and see what I can find!! Then again, if you can't tell me what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, then perhaps your search was bogus.

The reality that you are wrong and I suspect that you are not even telling the truth about doing an exhaustive Internet search. You are willing to say or do anything in order to try to support your position.

What do you call it when someone takes property which is not theirs and sells it?

I am sorry that you don't get that promoting illegal acts is not a good idea.

ke6guj
06-27-2009, 1:38 PM
Kemasa, it is hard to prove a negative. If there is no evidence, it will be impossible to prove that there is no evidence. How bout this, If you have knowledge of this evidence, why not post it instead of having the other person try to prove that it doesn't exist? And when they don't find anything, you insult their searching skills.

kemasa
06-27-2009, 1:50 PM
The other person is trying to prove that it has not happened by claiming to do an "exhaustive Internet search", which is a bogus claim and is really not honest. I could interview every elected official and see if it has ever been done, but I could miss someone.

Yes, it is hard to prove a negative, so it is best to not claim that you did.

grimmreaper
06-27-2009, 2:02 PM
hey kemasa take a deep breath and relax before you go into CARDIAC ARREST!

kemasa
06-27-2009, 2:19 PM
Hey, I am fine. I just don't like it when people claims to do an exhaustive Internet serach and claim that it proves anything at all. The person needs to be called on the carpet for it.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2009, 2:29 PM
Hey, I am fine. I just don't like it when people claims to do an exhaustive Internet serach and claim that it proves anything at all. The person needs to be called on the carpet for it.

That is my point. Do you see how easy it is to screw your argument when you make these claims? I do not have to be honest or actually do what I say. All I have to do is say it and you can't prove me wrong, unless you have actual evidence. Which if you found just a single bit of it, you could make me look like a fool. Except I will just claim I made the whole exhaustive search up and admit you were right. Which I have no problem doing, but at this time without evidence, I don't have to.

So if I made the exhaustive search up, you still have no proof that your statement that we need to be careful of the anti's is valid. You still are losing.

Come on, you have to be logically smarter than this.

kemasa
06-27-2009, 2:40 PM
The simple fact is that you should be concerned with how the firearms industry is viewed. You do not want to give any ammunition to the anti-gun people. There are a lot of people on the fence and such information could be used to sway them away.

The next aspect is that if you are dishonest, then any other statements you make will be questioned. I personally know of stories which are reported on the news and not one of them got the facts straight. Due to that, I don't believe the "news" at all, but many people due. I heard one person say "I know it is true because I read it in the LA Times".

So, you do need to be honest.

As you say, "you have to be logically smarter than this".

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2009, 2:48 PM
The simple fact is that you should be concerned with how the firearms industry is viewed. You do not want to give any ammunition to the anti-gun people. There are a lot of people on the fence and such information could be used to sway them away.

The next aspect is that if you are dishonest, then any other statements you make will be questioned. I personally know of stories which are reported on the news and not one of them got the facts straight. Due to that, I don't believe the "news" at all, but many people due. I heard one person say "I know it is true because I read it in the LA Times".

So, you do need to be honest.

As you say, "you have to be logically smarter than this".

You can't question my honesty if you can't prove I lied. You can't prove I lied until you have your own evidence. The burden of proof is on you now and I can smugly sit here and hold it over you. However, you put yourself in that position.

Sorry, I am not concerned with how anti-guners view the firearms industry. I know they hate our guts. I am also not concerned that a discussion of this technical nature is going to ever be relevant to a fence sitter who might be the swing vote on any gun rights issue. I would be willing to be even 95% of CALGUNS has stopped paying attention to this thread and it is only relevant to you or I.

So I see the "be careful what you say" is an excuse not to have a honest discussion on what to do in a practical situation.

If we were to care about our perception, then I wouldn't sell OLLs as the public will see me as just manipulating the system in order to violate the spirit of the law. Is that what you are suggesting we do? I wouldn't want an fence sitter to come in my shop and think I as being shady, they might ban guns!

kemasa
06-27-2009, 3:17 PM
To whom do I have to prove that you lied? I am not suing you, so it is not to a judge. You admitted that you did not do the search, which proves that you lied. But even if you claim you were making statements, you claimed that I was not a dealer and did not deal with the CA DOJ, which is false (aka a lie). There is a difference between making a mistake and making statements which are false when you have no evidence to back it up.

Anyone can question the honesty of another. There is no court of honesty. Do you think that the reputation of a person is based only on having proof which is acceptable to a court of law???

Rudolf the Red
06-27-2009, 9:00 PM
As a California Dealer, my notion from the DOJ is that they want handguns registered. If the origin of the PPT is questionable, the outcome is not. The handgun is now registered to a real person, CA knows where it is and made a buck on the deal.

raymartrading
06-28-2009, 10:10 PM
I would like to purchase a couple of guns from a friend. The problem is that the guns belonged to her now-deceased fiance. My friend is unsure if the guns are registered (but I assume that they were considering their spouse was active military).

I know I will have to go through a FFL at some point, but how would I go about obtaining these firearms legally?

Thanks in advance.

THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.
I am thinking back to a long time ago . . . in a galaxy far, far away.

Basically, the fiance has no legal rights to the firearms. They belong to the deceased fiance's estate. If he had a living trust/will; they may already have been spoken for as specific gifts.

You may want to play 20 questions with the surviving fiance . . . or maybe patty cakes if she is a babe. :devil2:

Don't do anything with the firearms until you know all the facts or else the both you could be found guilty of conversion (theft) by the administrator of the estate or by the beneficiaries. Once word gets out that she is selling his property; his family will come down on her and by implication--you, like a ton of bricks.

I hope all of you FFL's are listening. The prior exchanges about the DOJ and whatever are irrelevant. You can not claim you were/are an innocent intermediary! Based on the facts; you are/were knowingly aiding and abetting the unlawful dissipation of assets from his estate.

Guess who is going to get sued? Right, everybody who touched those firearms! Plus, I am sure the FEDS and DOJ will want to ask you a few questions about your due diligence. Are you making that much money on the transaction to threaten your license? Your livelihood?

Before you start crying about lawyers, just think . . . for a little money and time, you can control what happens to your property upon your death.

What? You are not going to die and are too lazy to plan for the future? You can do nothing and let your greedy relatives steal your safe with all of your precious guns or better yet; have your wife donate them to the Salvation Army or sell them for $25 because she always hated your gun collection!

IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN OR REAL PROPERTY, YOU NEED AN ESTATE PLAN. ASK ANNA NICOLE, now MICHAEL JACKSON.

Cheers,

FortCourageArmory
06-30-2009, 9:53 AM
THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.
I am thinking back to a long time ago . . . in a galaxy far, far away.

Basically, the fiance has no legal rights to the firearms. They belong to the deceased fiance's estate. If he had a living trust/will; they may already have been spoken for as specific gifts.

You may want to play 20 questions with the surviving fiance . . . or maybe patty cakes if she is a babe. :devil2:

Don't do anything with the firearms until you know all the facts or else the both you could be found guilty of conversion (theft) by the administrator of the estate or by the beneficiaries. Once word gets out that she is selling his property; his family will come down on her and by implication--you, like a ton of bricks.

I hope all of you FFL's are listening. The prior exchanges about the DOJ and whatever are irrelevant. You can not claim you were/are an innocent intermediary! Based on the facts; you are/were knowingly aiding and abetting the unlawful dissipation of assets from his estate.

Guess who is going to get sued? Right, everybody who touched those firearms! Plus, I am sure the FEDS and DOJ will want to ask you a few questions about your due diligence. Are you making that much money on the transaction to threaten your license? Your livelihood?

Before you start crying about lawyers, just think . . . for a little money and time, you can control what happens to your property upon your death.

What? You are not going to die and are too lazy to plan for the future? You can do nothing and let your greedy relatives steal your safe with all of your precious guns or better yet; have your wife donate them to the Salvation Army or sell them for $25 because she always hated your gun collection!

IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN OR REAL PROPERTY, YOU NEED AN ESTATE PLAN. ASK ANNA NICOLE, now MICHAEL JACKSON.

Cheers,

I think I said all this back up in post #2.... :rolleyes:

raymartrading
06-30-2009, 9:09 PM
My apologies. I missed your post. :wub:

kemasa
07-01-2009, 9:02 AM
raymartrading gave more specifics as to why it was a bad idea and some of the issues which you could face, which I think was well said. While the simple answer should be enough, for some people it is not (based on the responses after that).

jamesob
07-03-2009, 6:28 PM
don't ask the doj, they will give you the run around on this kind of stuff. i called them on how to transfer 2 handguns that belonged to my deceased sister inlaw. my neice who would be the legal owner ,gave them to me and told me to take care of it all. well the doj said that i should hire a lawyer on the legality of doing it, what the hell? no legality issues for me, they were givin to me. i say if the lady wants them gone and she has them and no other family member wants them, sell them and do the ppt. no theft or fraud involved.

cedew
07-03-2009, 8:39 PM
Bah, all this doesn't even need to be said out loud. Everyone knows that rules are bent behind the scenes, especially when the rules are there only for revenue, or to get your name marked down some place you don't want it. There is no question that it's best to go by the rules when we're out in the open. It would be naive to think this forum has never been browsed by a government agency checking for illegal activities. Go start a thread offering guns for $50 and put your phone number in the ad...I'm sure it will be fine. :D