PDA

View Full Version : Adding Shotgun to DROS


ugimports
11-12-2009, 12:02 PM
So I have a customer that just DROS'd yesterday for his single shot exempt AR pistol. He just ordered a shotgun from me today. Do I have to put this on a separate DROS?

And am I correct in the assumption that I can add this to his form 4473 since he will be picking up both at the same time?

Thanks,

kapache
11-12-2009, 12:12 PM
Multiple Drossing . Handgun drossing is different from Rifles.

ugimports
11-12-2009, 12:16 PM
But I am correct in being able to re-use the same 4473, right?

CHS
11-12-2009, 5:23 PM
Correct, same 4473.

Mike's Custom
11-12-2009, 5:29 PM
As long as the 2nd longgun is added before the first is picked up. Then you can just write in the change to the Firearm Quantity area. There might also be something about it being in stock. Give the DOJ a call tomorrow and get it from them. Always best to get it from the horses mouth...

tenpercentfirearms
11-14-2009, 7:59 AM
I believe you can sell long guns with handguns. I go over my reasoning here.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230841

The question is it worth the $25 to be wrong? It depends on if you want to possibly take the time to fight that the law is poorly worded and no matter what the intent might have been, adding that long gun to that handgun DROS is not prohibited.

kemasa
11-14-2009, 10:12 AM
It is a bad idea to give bad advice and you can not add a long gun to a handgun DROS, especially the next day. I have asked 10% to give be the 4473 transaction number to settle this, but so far that request has been ignored. With that info, the CA DOJ could have a nice chat and prove which way it really is.

There is an example of not being able to read when it is claimed that a handgun is not a firearm transaction due to the statement that multiple long guns can be a single firearm transaction (with restrictions).

CHS
11-14-2009, 10:23 AM
It is a bad idea to give bad advice and you can not add a long gun to a handgun DROS, especially the next day. I have asked 10% to give be the 4473 transaction number to settle this, but so far that request has been ignored. With that info, the CA DOJ could have a nice chat and prove which way it really is.

There is an example of not being able to read when it is claimed that a handgun is not a firearm transaction due to the statement that multiple long guns can be a single firearm transaction (with restrictions).

Kemasa, I find it very hard to believe that you're actually an FFL with how ignorant you have shown yourself to be after reading the thread that Wes has linked to.

The DOJ knows nothing about 4473 transaction numbers. Those are kept at the FFL's premises and have nothing to do with the DROS submission.

But you're an FFL, you should know that.... Right?

kemasa
11-14-2009, 10:38 AM
Wes claims that a handgun is not a firearm transaction, how much more do you need to say about that?

Your statements about the 4473 shows that you don't know how things work. The CA DOJ knows about 4473s and they do have something to do with the DROS submission or lack thereof. It is easier for a CA DOJ inspection to be looking for a specific 4473 rather than a DROS submission. The 4473 has all the information about the transaction, whereas the DROS only have is for a specific firearm or for multiple longguns. If you look at just the DROS submission for a handgun, you will not see that a long gun was added to it, but if you look at the 4473, you will see that a long gun was transferred, but that there was no additional DROS for it.

Do you really think that the CA DOJ never looks at the 4473s when they do an inspection?

So, I am waiting for the apology, which I am sure I will not get.

Mike's Custom
11-14-2009, 11:19 AM
the 4473 is a Federal document and I have never had a CADOJ inspection that asked for a 4473. In fact, I have never had a BATFE agent ask for a DROS. A 4473 can contain both long guns and hand guns. I find it easier to do seperate 4473s for longuns and handguns so the DROS goes with each 4473 form. The state has no jurisdiction over a 4473 or the feds over a DROS. If the state DOJ does find something wrong that could be a federal violation they will report it to the BATFE but they can do nothing about it and same goes for the feds.

Way back when the state started using the computes for registration/background checks the DOJ had some seminars. We, dealers present, were told that you could ADD long guns to the DROS after the DROS was submitted by crossing out the number of longguns and entering the new number. This could be done as long as the original longgun/s had not been picked up. This time continued to the end of the 30 day period as long as they had NOT been picked up. Back when we had to use the books we could send in an amended form with added longguns as long as the original longgun had not been picked up by the purchaser. So this allowed for adding longguns to the DROS. We were told that since the longgun DROS was a background check the number of longguns didn't really matter as long as they were all picked up at the same time and before the end of the 30 days.

halifax
11-14-2009, 4:11 PM
...Way back when the state started using the computes for registration/background checks the DOJ had some seminars. We, dealers present, were told that you could ADD long guns to the DROS after the DROS was submitted by crossing out the number of longguns and entering the new number. This could be done as long as the original longgun/s had not been picked up. This time continued to the end of the 30 day period as long as they had NOT been picked up. Back when we had to use the books we could send in an amended form with added longguns as long as the original longgun had not been picked up by the purchaser. So this allowed for adding longguns to the DROS. We were told that since the longgun DROS was a background check the number of longguns didn't really matter as long as they were all picked up at the same time and before the end of the 30 days.

And that is the way it should be. The original DROS code has no verbage as to the correct number of longguns being mandatory information. It's about the buyer's background not keeping statistics for the state.

tenpercentfirearms
11-14-2009, 9:42 PM
It is a bad idea to give bad advice and you can not add a long gun to a handgun DROS, especially the next day. I have asked 10% to give be the 4473 transaction number to settle this, but so far that request has been ignored. With that info, the CA DOJ could have a nice chat and prove which way it really is.

There is an example of not being able to read when it is claimed that a handgun is not a firearm transaction due to the statement that multiple long guns can be a single firearm transaction (with restrictions).

Kemasa, your reasoning is clearly flawed. I could make up a 4473 number and that would squash your argument. I could give a legit 4473 number and that too would squash your argument. In both cases, it has nothing to do with the reasoning behind your argument.

When you are out of ammunition to use, you go off on tangents. A 4473 number has nothing to do with this debate. Get back on track.

You are clearly scared of your DOJ masters. We know they must surely read this forum. Why haven't they called me yet? I have talked to one of their field agents about this, why didn't that send up some red flags?

The reason is they don't care! They can clearly see my case here and they know I have a defense. In the grand scheme of things are we skipping back ground checks? Are we giving guns to prohibited persons? Are we doing anything illegal? No we are not. They know it, we know it, you don't.

Wes claims that a handgun is not a firearm transaction, how much more do you need to say about that?Ah the classic one liner. Actually the Penal Code states that for the purposes of Section 12077(d)(4) "One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns." A single sale is a transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns. Therefore handguns are not a transaction. Those aren't my words, that is penal code. Obviously if I had written the penal code I would have been more clear. Sorry kemasa, you are still on the losing end and your little hatchet jobs don't work.

Way back when the state started using the computes for registration/background checks the DOJ had some seminars. We, dealers present, were told that you could ADD long guns to the DROS after the DROS was submitted by crossing out the number of longguns and entering the new number. This could be done as long as the original longgun/s had not been picked up. This time continued to the end of the 30 day period as long as they had NOT been picked up. Back when we had to use the books we could send in an amended form with added longguns as long as the original longgun had not been picked up by the purchaser. So this allowed for adding longguns to the DROS. We were told that since the longgun DROS was a background check the number of longguns didn't really matter as long as they were all picked up at the same time and before the end of the 30 days.Liar! Show us your 4473 control numbers as proof you aren't just making this up in an effort to bait these new guys into doing something rash. :rolleyes:

Again guys, it is only $25 and the customer pays it. If you want to make them start a new one, go for it. If you have read through the thread and you feel you have a defense if they ever question you on it, that is your choice. These types of situations occur so rarely it isn't worth the amount of worry kemasa loses sleep over.

I believe the OP still planned on running a new DROS anyway, he just wanted to attach both DROS to the same 4473. That is an interesting idea as you would have to write down two DROS numbers and dates in 21.A and 21.B.

Again the Feds don't care how many guns you add before the seller signs the 4473, they don't consider the transaction over until the seller signs.

kemasa
11-15-2009, 8:29 AM
10%, you clearly don't get it and can't read. It is a joke that you say that handguns are not firearm transactions. As I said before, your quoted section does not say that the only transaction is non-handguns, just that multiple long guns can be considered a single transaction.

Give a valid 4473 transaction number so that can be given to the CA DOJ for your inspection. If you are doing nothing wrong, then you should not fear giving that information.

You claim that I am afraid of my DOJ masters is just stupid, but it shows that you don't really have anything valid to say. They are not my masters and I am not afraid of them either. I don't break the law, even when I think that it should be a different way.

Again, it is not about what the Feds consider, but you don't seem to understand that. You keep repeating that to justify your belief that CA views it the same way or something.

Bobshouse
11-15-2009, 10:25 AM
I would not add it, at my shop you would pay the additional DROS fee...to many loose ends. First off, I would never do a "pen and ink" change on a government form. Secondly, the 10 day hold required by California would be compromised...and God help you if your log reflects that you received the added firearm 2 days after you DROSed the first.

tenpercentfirearms
11-15-2009, 2:23 PM
...and God help you if your log reflects that you received the added firearm 2 days after you DROSed the first.

I have guns come in on the same day they leave. Numerous dealers start long gun DROS before the firearm arrives.

tenpercentfirearms
11-15-2009, 2:36 PM
10%, you clearly don't get it and can't read. It is a joke that you say that handguns are not firearm transactions. As I said before, your quoted section does not say that the only transaction is non-handguns, just that multiple long guns can be considered a single transaction.

Yeah, I can't read. Brilliant deduction. Here read this...again.

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(4) One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns.You keep thinking that I am saying a handgun sale is not a transaction. Those aren't my words. Those are clearly the penal code's words. They are clearly saying that a transaction does not include handguns. I am not quite sure how you can continue to deny what is clearly spelled out in the penal code. Sure it doesn't make sense, but there it is. Welcome to California.

Give a valid 4473 transaction number so that can be given to the CA DOJ for your inspection. If you are doing nothing wrong, then you should not fear giving that information.Again, pointless. Me providing a number has nothing to do with the penal code text above. If your whole argument lies in me providing a number, fine. Here you go. 13509. I provided it. Are you going to call them and make sure they got it? Seriously, what did you expect to happen when I provided that number? Do you think they are going to run down and inspect me now? Do you think they are going to specifically ask for transaction number 13509? You are clearly out of ammo to resort to this pettiness.

You claim that I am afraid of my DOJ masters is just stupid, but it shows that you don't really have anything valid to say. They are not my masters and I am not afraid of them either. I don't break the law, even when I think that it should be a different way.Clearly you are afraid of them. You are afraid they monitor this board. You believe I am going to get inspected now because I posted a valid 4473 number. And you are so blinded from fear that you can't possibly fathom that the penal code doesn't make any sense to our advantage. So blinded that you stick to this line...

Again, it is not about what the Feds consider, but you don't seem to understand that. You keep repeating that to justify your belief that CA views it the same way or something.We have already established that the penal code nor DOJ specifies how long a single sale lasts. You can't give a definition other than what you pull out of the dictionary, which really doesn't prove anything. Since the CA DOJ does not specify how long a single sale lasts, then I simply follow that the BATFE has stated is the time frame for a sale. For some reason you can't make the link that if the state does not specifically define the length of a single sale, then you simply have to follow federal law.

So what do you have left to argue kemasa. The number is out there. Give us your prediction what is going to happen next. Will you be the one calling them to report me? Post up their response after you do. I will let you know when they come inspect me and how it goes. :sleeping:

How anticlimactic that you resorted to a silly number to prove your point. Now that the number is out there, I guess that means I was right all along. Too bad, you lose.

Mike's Custom
11-15-2009, 4:13 PM
Originally Posted by Mike's Custom
Way back when the state started using the computes for registration/background checks the DOJ had some seminars. We, dealers present, were told that you could ADD long guns to the DROS after the DROS was submitted by crossing out the number of longguns and entering the new number. This could be done as long as the original longgun/s had not been picked up. This time continued to the end of the 30 day period as long as they had NOT been picked up. Back when we had to use the books we could send in an amended form with added longguns as long as the original longgun had not been picked up by the purchaser. So this allowed for adding longguns to the DROS. We were told that since the longgun DROS was a background check the number of longguns didn't really matter as long as they were all picked up at the same time and before the end of the 30 days.

Liar! Show us your 4473 control numbers as proof you aren't just making this up in an effort to bait these new guys into doing something rash. :rolleyes:

Again guys, it is only $25 and the customer pays it.

What? I am lying about?

BTW, I DROS longguns seperately from hand guns like you do. I do a DROS and 4473 for hand guns and keep the longguns on their own DROS and 4473. It is easier for me to track and file.

tenpercentfirearms
11-15-2009, 8:14 PM
What? I am lying about?I was being sarcastic.

BTW, I DROS longguns seperately from hand guns like you do. I do a DROS and 4473 for hand guns and keep the longguns on their own DROS and 4473. It is easier for me to track and file.I have only done one or two long guns with a handgun DROS. I add long guns to the DROS all the time. I don't consider a sale over until I sign the 4473 since the state doesn't define how long a single sale lasts.

Mike's Custom
11-15-2009, 9:35 PM
I was being sarcastic.

I have only done one or two long guns with a handgun DROS. I add long guns to the DROS all the time. I don't consider a sale over until I sign the 4473 since the state doesn't define how long a single sale lasts.


Ok, got ya. I was told by BATFE that the sale is when the 4473 is signed at pick up and the DOJ considers the sale at the end of the 10 day waiting period or when the firearm is picked up. This was the reason for the bill that didn't get passed by Arnie, it would have made us dealers get the DROS signed and dated by the buyer when they picked up their purchase. That would close the sale.

tenpercentfirearms
11-16-2009, 5:39 AM
Ok, got ya. I was told by BATFE that the sale is when the 4473 is signed at pick up and the DOJ considers the sale at the end of the 10 day waiting period or when the firearm is picked up. This was the reason for the bill that didn't get passed by Arnie, it would have made us dealers get the DROS signed and dated by the buyer when they picked up their purchase. That would close the sale.

Very interesting take. I need to go back and look at the language of that bill. Depending on what the language says, it might pretty much prove that if the transaction was already closed at DROS start, they wouldn't need new legislation to say it was closed at the end.

Here is a link.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_41_bill_20090623_amended_asm_v96.html

I did a quick read and it would have only required a signature from everyone on handgun sales. It would not have affected long guns. It didn't appear to me that our language in 12077(d) would have changed. So handguns still would not have been considered a transaction and the length of a single sale still would not be defined by state law.

kemasa
11-16-2009, 8:32 AM
10%, go read you other posts where you say that a handgun is not a firearm transaction. Page three of the thread that you posted, you say "And here is where it says a handgun is not considered a firearms transaction." The penal code does NOT say that a handgun is not considered a firearm transaction, that us just what you are reading into it, although incorrectly.

The CA DOJ just might come to inspect you and look for that specific 4473 transaction number, but do tell what exactly did you do on that transaction? Did you add additional longguns after the DROS was submitted or did you add a longgun to a handgun DROS?

You are really funny. You think that minutes after you post a 4473 transaction number that it suddenly proves you point? It goes to show your flawed logic.

tenpercentfirearms
11-16-2009, 7:01 PM
10%, go read you other posts where you say that a handgun is not a firearm transaction. Page three of the thread that you posted, you say "And here is where it says a handgun is not considered a firearms transaction." The penal code does NOT say that a handgun is not considered a firearm transaction, that us just what you are reading into it, although incorrectly.It seems pretty simple to me. Let me quote it again for you.

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(4) One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns. A transaction means a sale, loan or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns. Therefore a handgun sale does not fall under the 12077(d)(4) definition of a transaction. Sorry, it seems pretty clear to me. Of course all you have is that I am reading it wrong. Really? How is that?

The CA DOJ just might come to inspect you and look for that specific 4473 transaction number, but do tell what exactly did you do on that transaction? Did you add additional longguns after the DROS was submitted or did you add a longgun to a handgun DROS?I think I did both. I added long guns after the fact on a handgun DROS.

You are really funny. You think that minutes after you post a 4473 transaction number that it suddenly proves you point? It goes to show your flawed logic.Really. You are the one who challenged me to do it. I did it. The roof hasn't caved in yet. You made it sound like if I was so sure of myself that I should post it and they would come have a talk with me. Basically you implied what I was quoting from the penal code couldn't be correct because I hadn't shown any examples. There is your example. That must mean I am right then. Obviously you aren't correct or you would have something more substantial to say than "It goes to show your flawed logic." What does? Whatever you do, don't explain yourself. You would radically alter the way you run your posts. Your one liners absent of any sort of logical connection to the penal code is what you are best at.

I'll stick to the penal code and federal guidelines. You just keep running things based off of what your masters tell you to do.

kemasa
11-17-2009, 10:36 AM
The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

I am not sure of why you expect instant results after your posting the 4473 transaction number. It takes time for your post to get noticed and then the process would get started and eventually an inspection planned with the resulting agent to walk into your business and do the inspection and then explaining the facts of life to you. Do you really think that the DOJ is going to drop everything and get on the next plane to come inspect you? Do you really think that you are that important? Your post on a public forum puts you on the radar and your posting of the 4473 transaction number makes it easier for the inspector, if you were really honest with the number, which I doubt. Based on your comment that you claim to have added long guns on a handgun DROS, after it was submitted, I am willing to bet that you are lying about it. Once you are shown to be a liar, then why should anyone trust anything that you say?

Wes, grow up and stop with the stupid, childish "masters" comments. You only make yourself look like an immature child on the playground.

tenpercentfirearms
11-18-2009, 5:57 AM
The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

I am not sure of why you expect instant results after your posting the 4473 transaction number. It takes time for your post to get noticed and then the process would get started and eventually an inspection planned with the resulting agent to walk into your business and do the inspection and then explaining the facts of life to you. Do you really think that the DOJ is going to drop everything and get on the next plane to come inspect you? Do you really think that you are that important? Your post on a public forum puts you on the radar and your posting of the 4473 transaction number makes it easier for the inspector, if you were really honest with the number, which I doubt. Based on your comment that you claim to have added long guns on a handgun DROS, after it was submitted, I am willing to bet that you are lying about it. Once you are shown to be a liar, then why should anyone trust anything that you say?

Wes, grow up and stop with the stupid, childish "masters" comments. You only make yourself look like an immature child on the playground.

I called that one. I posted a number, it proves nothing, and you can't even verify if it is a real number or not. Which then leads you to then discredit your own evidence and further makes your entire reason for asking a number seriously flawed. Which is the entire way you approach this debate. I cite penal code and federal regulatory definitions. You cite the dictionary, your idea of common sense, hamburger hut procedures, and want 4473 numbers.

I think it is clear who has an understanding of what is going on here and who has yet to step up to the plate.

The masters comments are just icing on the cake for me.

kemasa
11-18-2009, 9:11 AM
I love it how you jump to conclusions. We shall see if the CA DOJ takes notice of you and comes to ask about that 4473 transaction number, then and only then will we have an answer. Expecting them to come within minutes of your posting shows a serious flaw in your expectations. Your posting about doing things which are illegal, or very questionable, at best, also speaks volumes about you. I am not surprised that you liked the comment about the masters, but then again it shows that you don't get it and you are still living on the playground. I value my freedom and will push issues in which I can win or at least not lose big time. I have enough sense to know what you are saying is just plain wrong and you try to play with emotional issues by trying to claim that if I follow the law then I am afraid of some masters. Very mature of you.

Your logic is lacking. The reason my my asking for the 4473 transaction number is to make it easier for the CA DOJ. Now, either you gave a real number or you are a liar. Based on what you claim you did on that 4473, it seems likely that you are a liar. I can not prove that, but your own words convict you.

You cite penal codes, but then you warp the wording into what you want, not what is written. You claim that you did not say things, then I quote what you said and reference the thread, but then you ignore that.

Yes, it is clear what is going on. You are trying to promote illegal activities to others.

Mike's Custom
11-18-2009, 9:32 AM
DOJ does NOT use 4473 ANYTHING. That is a Federal Document.

kemasa
11-18-2009, 9:36 AM
The CA DOJ can look at the 4473, even though it is not their form. The Bound Book is a Federal Document too, so do you think that they can't look at it either?

tenpercentfirearms
11-18-2009, 5:31 PM
The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

Let's look at it one more time shall we?

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(4) One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns.

First, you are claiming that only one firearm transaction can be reported on each record of sale document. Meaning, once DROS starts, you cannot add new guns to the transaction. That is fine; however, the word "transaction" is in quotes because they go further to define what a "transaction" is. A transaction is a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns.

You have yet to show a penal code definition that defines what a "single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms" is. Yes, you could consider a single sale the day the customer comes in and buys the gun. Once he leaves, you could consider that sale concluded. However, where does the penal code state that is the definition of a single sale?

You see I consider a single sale any sales I make before the customer comes in and picks up the long gun or handgun. My definition is just as correct as yours, unless you can specifically show me in penal definition or in CCR that where I am incorrect and you are correct. A single sale is not defined and no length of time is given. In fact, the only thing that even hints that we are limited to a certain number of firearms is the DROS requirement to list the number of long guns. However, as I have pointed out, no where in PC 12077 does it specificy that the DOJ should ask for the number of long guns. The DOJ is overstepping their authority in requiring that we list the number of long guns and making that a defining moment in the firearms transaction.

Therefore, I have no problems simply crossing that number out on the DROS and making it the correct number. To further back up my claim, the federal government clearly specifies when you can no longer add firearms to the 4473. If I add firearms before I sign the 4473, I am not violating federal law. Since I don't consider my single sales of multiple long guns over until I sign the 4473, I am not violating state law either since state law is not defined.

kemasa, your challenge is to show where a single sale is defined by the state through penal code or through the CA DOJ in CCR. Until you can do that, you cannot use dictionary defintions, fast food examples, or anything else to claim I am breaking the law. Sorry. The reason the Romans invented written legal code was so the police could not invent law as they went.

The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

Again, lets look at the penal code.

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(4) One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns. Note, that we are specifically looking at this subdivision as is clearly stated by the penal code. This subdivision says you must limit the use of DROS for one firearm transaction. However, they go further to define a "transaction" as being the single sale of firearms that are not handguns. So you can only put one single sale of any number of long guns on a DROS. That is the limit they are specifying.

What they are not limiting for [the] purposes of this subdivision are handgun sales. For the purposes of this subdivision, "handguns" are not limited as they do not meet the definition of a "transaction". So you could technically put multiple sales of handguns on a DROS, for the purposes of this subdivision.

Now we all clearly know that handguns sales, in other subdivisions and chapters of penal code, are limited to one per 30 days unless you are exempted. The interesting thing is no where in 12077 does it specify that you can only put one handgun per DROS. Again 12077(d)(4) states handguns don't apply to the single sale rule, but only "not handguns" are affected.

So technically the DOJ might be over stepping their bounds in requiring that persons exempt from the 30 day rule must use multiple DROS forms for multiple handgun sales.

Now an interesting thing is PC 12076 deals with DROS fees.

12076(i)(1) Only one fee shall be charged pursuant to this section for a single transaction on the same date for the sale of any number of firearms that are not pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person or for the taking of possession of those firearms.
(2) In a single transaction on the same date for the delivery of any number of firearms that are pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, the department shall charge a reduced fee pursuant to this section for the second and subsequent firearms that are part of that transaction.
(j) Only one fee shall be charged pursuant to this section for a single transaction on the same date for taking title or possession of any number of firearms pursuant to paragraph (18) of subdivision (b) of Section 12071 or subdivision (c) or (i) of Section 12078.If you read 12076(i) it says you can only charge one fee on the same date or for the taking of possession of those firearms. If you could only DROS a set number of long guns on start date, then why specify you can't charge more for taking possession? Also reading the language, they don't really specify that the sale begins at DROS. They say you can only charge one fee on the date of the sale. What if the date of the sale is the date I deliver the guns? What if I consider the Dealer Record of Sale started on DROS start, but not an official sale until DROS conclusion? Show me penal code where I am wrong on this. Remember 12077(d)(4) specifically states "for the purposes of this subdivision," which means you cannot use 12077 definitions in 12076 and vice versa.

The other interesting thing is that handguns can have multiples per transaction. In (i)(2) it states that a single transaction on the same date you can charge a reduced fee for the second and subsequent firearms that are part of that transaction. So it is still the same transaction, you just get charged more for additional handguns.

tenpercentfirearms
11-18-2009, 5:41 PM
I love it how you jump to conclusions. We shall see if the CA DOJ takes notice of you and comes to ask about that 4473 transaction number, then and only then will we have an answer. Expecting them to come within minutes of your posting shows a serious flaw in your expectations. Your posting about doing things which are illegal, or very questionable, at best, also speaks volumes about you. I am not surprised that you liked the comment about the masters, but then again it shows that you don't get it and you are still living on the playground. I value my freedom and will push issues in which I can win or at least not lose big time. I have enough sense to know what you are saying is just plain wrong and you try to play with emotional issues by trying to claim that if I follow the law then I am afraid of some masters. Very mature of you.

Your logic is lacking. The reason my my asking for the 4473 transaction number is to make it easier for the CA DOJ. Now, either you gave a real number or you are a liar. Based on what you claim you did on that 4473, it seems likely that you are a liar. I can not prove that, but your own words convict you.
In the bold quotes above, note you criticize me for jumping to conclusions, then you jump to conclusions. Hypocrite.

Again, your asking for the 4473s was foolish as it proved nothing. I stated I could lie and make numbers up and that would screw you and I stated until the DOJ inspects me and asks about those numbers, it still proves nothing. You kept asking for the numbers. I gave you a number. It proved nothing. Really it just proves you are too scared to question the DOJ and you are more intersted in seeing those of us who do question the DOJ punished for our misdeeds. I quote you again below as evidence.

The reason my my asking for the 4473 transaction number is to make it easier for the CA DOJ.Gee thanks kemasa. Glad you are so willing to rat out your fellow FFLs. You sure take pleasure in persecuting others. I wonder why? Ah, its irrelevant.

You cite penal codes, but then you warp the wording into what you want, not what is written. You claim that you did not say things, then I quote what you said and reference the thread, but then you ignore that.

Yes, it is clear what is going on. You are trying to promote illegal activities to others.

I am not warping anything. Clearly the penal code was poorly written and I am clearly showing where it is not clear and I am showing a very logical and clearly laid out interpretation of it. I have successfully run you into circles and you have yet to show evidence that what I am doing is wrong.

What our readers here should do is imagine kemasa is the prosecutor for the DOJ (which he might be seeing as he wants to make the DOJ's job easier) and I am my lawyer. Who do you think the judge is going to side with? The guy who can't clearly quote the penal code, gets the sections confused, runs them together on accident, uses the online Webster's dictionary for legal definitions outside of the legislatively approved penal code (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230841), and then makes blind refences to what I said in other posts and brings them back up without links?

You see there are some of us who choose to exercise our brains and step outside of the box and challenge our masters. Despite a slight risk of "upsetting the man", I can logically spell out where I believe I am correct in my reading of law and I do so so we can all remain free. Well others, they simply do this,

I value my freedom and will push issues in which I can win or at least not lose big time. I have enough sense to know what you are saying is just plain wrong and you try to play with emotional issues by trying to claim that if I follow the law then I am afraid of some masters.Clearly you don't value your freedom. You value following your masters rules so he doesn't pull your leash harder. If you valued freedom, you wouldn't just push issues you can win or only small issues. Some people must stand up and throw off the chains of their masters so they can achieve true freedom, not just the guise of freedom in the form of privileges granted by your keepers.

No kemasa, disagreeing with free men as they try to open your cage door by reporting them to your keepers is not a free man. You are their slave. You fear being let out of your cage and you will turn in those that risk giving you that freedom.

What do I know? I just reference code and am willing to debate with the government what they wrote in their law on many levels, not just the ones I feel safe behind.

Again fellow FFLs, if you feel uncomfortable at all, err on the side of caution and just charge the $25 extra bucks and run the DROS again. There is a risk that the DOJ might come down and try and hammer me on these things. I choose to stand up and behind my reading of the penal code. I do so in matters large and small. This is not a challenge to the DOJ or a dare for them to bust me. It is a debate on the reading of the code. I respect them and I follow the law.

Selling felons firearms is illegal. Skipping the ten day wait for an extra $40 is illegal. Not logging guns in and out of my books is illegal. Selling assault weapons and fully automatic weapons is illegal. Clearly if I disagree with the limits on these things, I should attempt to amend the clearly defined laws that prohibit these actions. Until then, I must obey the law or risk punishment. Clearly violating the law is foolish and not something I do.

Whether you can add long guns to a 4473 or whether you can piggy back long guns onto a handgun DROS is debatable. I accept this honest debate and feel my posts back up my position.

ugimports
11-18-2009, 8:30 PM
Just chiming in as the OP. I ended up running a 2nd DROS and am doing a separate 4473 for the shotgun..so in the end, I'll have 2 DROS's and 2 4473s, and I ate the cost on the $25 because I told my customer I could do it on 1 and refuse to make him pay for any mistake I may have made.

Just wanted to let the readers know what I ended up doing after reading the debate. In the future, I'll probably still run 2 just to keep my records straight, but will make sure the customer knows this so I don't have to eat another $25 :)

Mike's Custom
11-18-2009, 11:02 PM
I have never had them look and I have been a FFL since 94. Plus, having 2 BATFE agents in the family let me ask all kinds of question. I have never had a BATFE agent or inspector ask me for a DROS or a CA DOJ agent or inspector ask me for a 4473. That would be like having Navada LE look to see if I am violating any CA laws. IF the BATFE comes across a state violation they will report it to the state but they can take no action on their own and visa versa.

kemasa
11-19-2009, 8:05 AM
12077. (a) The Department of Justice shall prescribe the form of
the register and the record of electronic transfer pursuant to
Section 12074.
(b) (1) For handguns, information contained in the register or
record of electronic transfer shall be the date and time of sale
...


Deceptive quoting of the penal code is dishonest. You need to look at the whole penal code section, which you are clearly ignoring.

Wes, you are correct, the penal code does not define "single". I don't think that it defines "sale", "document", or many other words.

Your definition of what a single sale does not match up with others, but most importantly with people who can bring charges against you. You could consider everything you sell to a specific person as a single sale, but do you really think that a jury will agree with you, which is even more important. I think you are making a big mistake trying to claim that the definition of what a single sale is needed in the penal code and more importantly trying to promote your view to others.

You are required to submit accurate information on the DROS. Changing the information because you made a mistake is one thing, but changing it due to making changes is another.

Again you try to use the Feds to back your position, but it does not apply. Look at the difference with transfering firearms to family members.

What does DROS stand for. Dealer Record Of SALE. You are reporting a SALE. You are not reporting what might be a sale or part of a sale.

I stated my opinion as to your honesty or lack thereof. That is not jumping to conclusions, it is based on your words. You even admit that you could lie about the number.

As I have stated before, the reason I am pushing this issue is because you are promoting violating the law. I don't want to see any FFLs charged and forced out of business as there are too few FFLs now, less all the time, and it looks really bad in the media. It is bad enough if you do what you are suggesting, but when you do it in a public forum and suggest that others should do it, you are creating problems what we, the firearms industry, does not want or need. Anti-gunners could take your posts and create very negative PR. Is that what you really want???

Wes, you claim that I am willing to "rat" out my fellow FFLs. There is no basis for that. That is quite clearly a personal attack against me. I am not the one who is promoting illegal (at a minimum very questionable) acts on a public forum. The claim that Wes is making with adding longguns is based on the word "single", trying to claim that a sale made on one day can be combined with a sale on another day and then say that it is a single sale. With adding a long gun to a handgun DROS, he abuses the wording that states that multiple longguns can be considered a single transaction claiming that it is the one and only definition of what a transactions is, ignoring the rest of the same code section.

Perhaps readers should consider who is deceptively quoting code sections, defines "single" in any way he wants. The judge will have a field day with Wes, just on the word single.

It is also clear that Wes has a high opinion of himself. He as not "run me in circles", although he talks in circles, makes false claims, like claiming I am in fear of my masters, which I have no masters and I am not in fear of anyone. He also falsely claims that I am in a cage. Quite clearly, he needs professional help.

You don't know the areas in which I am willing to push, but it is stupid to stand in front of a tank and expect to come out ok. There are other ways to effect change and get the laws changed. Have you contacted your representatives to see if you can get them to change to law so that you can include a long gun with a handgun DROS? Have you done anything other than post here? I have.

tenpercentfirearms
11-19-2009, 4:56 PM
Deceptive quoting of the penal code is dishonest. You need to look at the whole penal code section, which you are clearly ignoring.

How are sections (a) and (b) relevant to section (i)? What did quoting section (a) and (b) do to clarify (i) and (j)? Boy this sounds familiar, except when I called you on it, you were running together text from 12076 with 12077. Nice try kemasa, but your line of reasoning has no relevance and is a shoddy attempt to mimick my earlier points of your inability to properly quote and understand code.

Wes, you are correct, the penal code does not define "single". I don't think that it defines "sale", "document", or many other words.

Your definition of what a single sale does not match up with others, but most importantly with people who can bring charges against you. You could consider everything you sell to a specific person as a single sale, but do you really think that a jury will agree with you, which is even more important. I think you are making a big mistake trying to claim that the definition of what a single sale is needed in the penal code and more importantly trying to promote your view to others.So please quote for us what others consider a single sale. You say my definition of a single sale, the sale which concludes at the end of the transaction when the customer finishes paying for the products and leaves with the merchandise, would be rejected by a jury? My definition of a sale which also matches what the federal government considers a sale would be rejected by a jury? You are incorrect, as usual, as you could not claim everythign you sell to a specific person is a single sale as the 4473 states once the dealer signs the form, a new 4473 must be used. Second, for accounting purposes, once a customer is finished with a transaction, a sales receipt needs to be printed in order to properly file income and sales tax returns.

You claim other people have a different definition of a single sale, but you don't give examples. That won't cut it. It is called supporting your case. Just because you say it is so, does not make it true. Maybe you didn't write many term papers in your life where you learn to back up your position with relevant facts and examples. I guess I will be your teacher.

You are required to submit accurate information on the DROS. Changing the information because you made a mistake is one thing, but changing it due to making changes is another.When I started the form, the information was correct. I initially sold him 2 long guns and he changed his mind and wanted three. Since he had not left with the merchandise yet, further I had not printed him a sales receipt, the single sale was not concluded. Therefore I corrected the DROS and wrote the correct number down on the form. As I have stated previously, per penal code, the DOJ has no authority to ask how many long guns were sold. (PC 12077(c)(1) through (3)). Done.

Again you try to use the Feds to back your position, but it does not apply. Look at the difference with transfering firearms to family members.The feds most certainly apply. I am showing compliance with federal law and since state law does not specify how long a single sale lasts, I simply am following federal law. What is the difference with transfering firearms to family members? You generally support your statement with an example after making such a claim. Well articulated people with a case do.

What does DROS stand for. Dealer Record Of SALE. You are reporting a SALE. You are not reporting what might be a sale or part of a sale.I am reporting a sale. A sale of multiple long guns. Done.

I stated my opinion as to your honesty or lack thereof. That is not jumping to conclusions, it is based on your words. You even admit that you could lie about the number.Pointless.

As I have stated before, the reason I am pushing this issue is because you are promoting violating the law. I don't want to see any FFLs charged and forced out of business as there are too few FFLs now, less all the time, and it looks really bad in the media. It is bad enough if you do what you are suggesting, but when you do it in a public forum and suggest that others should do it, you are creating problems what we, the firearms industry, does not want or need. Anti-gunners could take your posts and create very negative PR. Is that what you really want???Please. You have yet to show that I am promoting violating the law. And don't give me your fake concern about other FFLs. We can clearly see where your concern is in regards to other FFLs and looking out for their best interests in attempting to get me shut down. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Wes, you claim that I am willing to "rat" out my fellow FFLs. There is no basis for that. That is quite clearly a personal attack against me. I am not the one who is promoting illegal (at a minimum very questionable) acts on a public forum. The claim that Wes is making with adding longguns is based on the word "single", trying to claim that a sale made on one day can be combined with a sale on another day and then say that it is a single sale. With adding a long gun to a handgun DROS, he abuses the wording that states that multiple longguns can be considered a single transaction claiming that it is the one and only definition of what a transactions is, ignoring the rest of the same code section.Sorry, what rest of the same code section am I ignoring? Again, you are making baseless claims. Cite references and give examples. I can say the sky is black, but that doesn't make it so. No basis for stating you are trying to rat out your fellow FFLs? Do I have to go quote your, "I am just making it easier on the DOJ when they inspect you" line again? Do you expect to be taken seriously around here?

Perhaps readers should consider who is deceptively quoting code sections, defines "single" in any way he wants. The judge will have a field day with Wes, just on the word single.This pretty much proves you are out of your league. My ommitting irrelevant code (for those of you like kemasa that don't get it, unless it specifically states that section (i) applies to section (a), they are different parts of code) that doesn't apply to the debate is not deception. You running code from 12076 into code from 12077 was flat wrong (source (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3205742&postcount=6)). When I called you on it, you claimed you messed up when you were cutting and pasting. You can't even keep up with this debate. You are in over your head.

It is also clear that Wes has a high opinion of himself. He as not "run me in circles", although he talks in circles, makes false claims, like claiming I am in fear of my masters, which I have no masters and I am not in fear of anyone. He also falsely claims that I am in a cage. Quite clearly, he needs professional help.You are obviously not a fan of figurative speech (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/figurative), analogies, or hyperbole. I have provided links for you so you can go look them up.

You don't know the areas in which I am willing to push, but it is stupid to stand in front of a tank and expect to come out ok. There are other ways to effect change and get the laws changed. Have you contacted your representatives to see if you can get them to change to law so that you can include a long gun with a handgun DROS? Have you done anything other than post here? I have.Why would I need to contact my representatives to have them change a law that already doesn't exist?

Kemasa, you are in way over you head. Graciously bow out or at least step up your game and start backing up your statements with concrete examples and references. I am starting to feel some guilt for how easy it is to destroy your arguments.

And again for those of you fellow FFLs out there, if this makes you feel uncomfortable at all, don't do it! I am pretty sure I have made that clear numerous times. Clearly kemasa has no problems with using me as his test case to see if I am right or wrong, while taking no risk himself. I am not afraid of the CA DOJ because I follow the law. They are not my "master", as you like to attack me with. That is so grade school of you to resort to personal attacks, but it also shows that you really don't have a real defense to your position. The fact is that you are looking for a fight with the DOJ when you state publically that you are not going to follow the law, or at least what they believe to be the law. I would love to see that fight happen since if you happen to win, things will get better for everyone. If you lose, well, then the point is made.(source (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3237308&postcount=30))
That sounds like a free and couragous man to me. :rolleyes:

kemasa
11-20-2009, 9:16 AM
What is the quote, that Common Sense is not common or something like that?

A single sale means just that. Once the person leaves the store, that single sale ends.

So, if the person never finishes paying, then the sale never ends?

Where does the BATF define what a sale is? You are confused with what they consider a firearm transaction to be, which is clearly different than what CA defines it as.

So, where is your supporting evidence that you can expand what a single sale is? Where do you get the definition for it? Please don't try the 4473 firearm transaction and claim that is a sale as you have previously tried. If someone pays you, do you give a sales receipt? If so, then how does that relate to your saying that once a customer is finished with a transaction, a sales receipt needs to be printed?

Look into the mirror, just because you say it does not make it true.

Back up this statement by you "As I have stated previously, per penal code, the DOJ has no authority to ask how many long guns were sold. (PC 12077(c)(1) through (3))". Where does is say in that penal code that the DOJ can not ask how many longguns are sold? Show anything in the penal code which prevents them from asking.

As a FFL, you should know the difference in the CA and Federal law with respect to transferring a firearm between family members. Quite clearly, you are more interested in personally attacking me than proving your point, most likely because you can not. You keep making the mistake to try to use Federal law with respect to CA law. Where does the Federal law talk about a "single sale"?

Again you lie when you claim that I have a fake concern about other FFLs. If that was true, I would not bother trying to correct you and would not try to ensure that other FFLs don't follow your bad advice. How am I trying to get you shutdown if you are following the law? You just love the personal attacks. Remember, you are doing nothing wrong, so you have nothing to worry about and there is absolutely nothing that I can do to get you shutdown. Of course, if you know what you are saying is illegal, then you would have somewhat of a case since I did get you to post a 4473 transaction number, but the reality is that you are the one who is trying to get yourself shutdown by posting in a public forum. The fact is that I have no reason to want to get you shutdown, but I do have reasons for wanting you to follow the law.

Stating that I want to make it easier for the DOJ to inspect you because YOU provided the information on a public forum, which they are known to watch, has nothing to do with your claim of "rat out", but instead you are doing that to yourself and want to blame me for your actions and your public statements.

Wes, based on your false statements, you claim that I am over my head is clearly bogus.

ke6guj
11-20-2009, 10:57 AM
OK Ken and Wes, I think you guys are gonna need to agree to disagree at some point. Doesn't look like either side is gonna change his position on the matter.

kemasa
11-20-2009, 11:05 AM
I would love the law to be changed to be what Wes claims it will be, but until that happens, I will follow the law as I want to continue to be a FFL. I will speak out when someone states that they can do something which is wrong.

You will note all of the personal attacks by Wes, which is unacceptable, but shows the reality of the situation.

If the CA DOJ takes notice and takes action against him, then we will have a change of position. His position makes sense, but the law is not about sense. It will be good for everyone in CA if he can successfully prove his case in a court of law or can get the CA DOJ to state that his view is accurate. It will be time for a party if that happens. Until that happens or the law changes, it is best to not promote such acts.

CHS
11-20-2009, 12:22 PM
OK Ken and Wes, I think you guys are gonna need to agree to disagree at some point. Doesn't look like either side is gonna change his position on the matter.

The sad thing is, Wes is right and Kemasa is wrong. If you actually read the law, that part is pretty clear.

I would love the law to be changed to be what Wes claims it will be, but until that happens, I will follow the law as I want to continue to be a FFL. I will speak out when someone states that they can do something which is wrong.


Actually, you are the one who's in the wrong here. You're not reading the law and simply repeat what the DoJ tells you.

kemasa
11-20-2009, 2:08 PM
Sorry, but you are wrong and making false claims. I am not going on what the DOJ tells me, I can read the penal code and see if it makes sense. You sound like a 10% parrot. I could go over the details, but that has already been done and it seems clear that you are not listening either.

You could take a poll and see what the results are, but that would not go your way most likely and that would be unacceptable for you and Wes.

CHS
11-20-2009, 2:24 PM
You could take a poll and see what the results are, but that would not go your way most likely and that would be unacceptable for you and Wes.

Ooooooooooooooooooh really???

tenpercentfirearms
11-21-2009, 8:39 PM
What is the quote, that Common Sense is not common or something like that?

A single sale means just that. Once the person leaves the store, that single sale ends.That is your opinion stated without any support.

So, if the person never finishes paying, then the sale never ends?Correct and after 30 days the person will have to start a new background check.

Where does the BATF define what a sale is? You are confused with what they consider a firearm transaction to be, which is clearly different than what CA defines it as.BATFE doesn't really define a sale, they just state when you can no longer add any more firearms to the 4473. You would think you would know that.

So, where is your supporting evidence that you can expand what a single sale is? Where do you get the definition for it? Please don't try the 4473 firearm transaction and claim that is a sale as you have previously tried. If someone pays you, do you give a sales receipt? If so, then how does that relate to your saying that once a customer is finished with a transaction, a sales receipt needs to be printed?There is no definition of a single sale. That is the problem. You think a single sale ends when the customer leaves the shop, which coincides with what supposedly the DOJ thinks. The problem is, you cannot provide where the statutory evidence is that proves your definition.

I define a single sale as a single sales transaction. I use Quickbooks Point of Sale for my inventory control and receipt printing. I start all transactions as a sales order. A sales order is open and does not close until you turn it into a sales receipt. When a customer comes in to pick up their firearm(s), I turn their sales order into a sales receipt, sign the 4473 and date and time the DROS. That is when the single sale is over.

I made up my definition of a sale in the absence of any sort of definition in the penal code. Just like you made your definition up absent of any sort of definition of the penal code. The main difference in our two definitions is my definition is consistent with the procedures allowed by the federal government for adding more firearms to the 4473, but yours does not. This doesn't mean you can't refrain from adding firearms to the 4473 by your own choice as you are not violating federal guidelines by not adding firearms. I am not violating federal guidelines by adding them.

Look into the mirror, just because you say it does not make it true.It is your job to state where it says I can't. You have been repeatedly asked to do so and you repeatedly have failed to do so.

Back up this statement by you "As I have stated previously, per penal code, the DOJ has no authority to ask how many long guns were sold. (PC 12077(c)(1) through (3))". Where does is say in that penal code that the DOJ can not ask how many longguns are sold? Show anything in the penal code which prevents them from asking.Nothing prevents them from asking, but it is not a required question as outlined in PC12077. So to say they ask because they have to would be incorrect. So if they are not required to ask this information, then it is not important that it is accurately transmitted electronically. If the DOJ attempts to claim we cannot add long guns to a 4473 because it varies from the electronic register, they are creating underground regulation.

As a FFL, you should know the difference in the CA and Federal law with respect to transferring a firearm between family members. Quite clearly, you are more interested in personally attacking me than proving your point, most likely because you can not. You keep making the mistake to try to use Federal law with respect to CA law. Where does the Federal law talk about a "single sale"?This clearly sums up your lack of ability to clearly keep up with this subject or really any subject. If you are going to claim there are differences in family transfers, you should outline specifically what those differences are to support your point. Instead, you just come up with vague side issues to get off the main issue. The main issue is you cannot show how long a single sale lasts. You claim I am doing something illegal, but until you can show that my definition of a single sale is clearly outside of the state's definition of a single sale, you have no case. Hence your going off on a tangent about a broad issue like family transfers and then crying victim about personal attacks.

Again you lie when you claim that I have a fake concern about other FFLs. If that was true, I would not bother trying to correct you and would not try to ensure that other FFLs don't follow your bad advice. How am I trying to get you shutdown if you are following the law? You just love the personal attacks. Remember, you are doing nothing wrong, so you have nothing to worry about and there is absolutely nothing that I can do to get you shutdown. Of course, if you know what you are saying is illegal, then you would have somewhat of a case since I did get you to post a 4473 transaction number, but the reality is that you are the one who is trying to get yourself shutdown by posting in a public forum. The fact is that I have no reason to want to get you shutdown, but I do have reasons for wanting you to follow the law.I am not lying. I am making conclusions based off of your posts. You have been trying to correct me, but so far you have failed miserably. I don't have anything to fear as I am participating in this public debate. However, I clearly showed where you have not provided a definition to back up your claim and instead you focus on my 4473 control numbers and publicly seek to see me busted to prove yourself correct. You don't think that reflects poorly on your credibility and most certainly your "good will"?

I would love the law to be changed to be what Wes claims it will be, but until that happens, I will follow the law as I want to continue to be a FFL. I will speak out when someone states that they can do something which is wrong.I respect that. Too bad you can't show the state's definition of when a single sale ends that coincides with yours. Which means you can't prove my definition wrong, which means you have not proved that what I am talking about is illegal or wrong.

You will note all of the personal attacks by Wes, which is unacceptable, but shows the reality of the situation.Stating the facts is not a personal attack. Making conclusions about your character and mental capacity based on your posts are not personal attacks. Quit playing the victim card and give us a definition of single sale.

If the CA DOJ takes notice and takes action against him, then we will have a change of position. His position makes sense, but the law is not about sense. It will be good for everyone in CA if he can successfully prove his case in a court of law or can get the CA DOJ to state that his view is accurate. It will be time for a party if that happens. Until that happens or the law changes, it is best to not promote such acts.How do you think you are going to get them to admit we are right? By toeing their line without question? It is amusing that you think what I say makes sense, but you are so combative against it. You are eager to see if I am right or not by sending me out to be the test case. Fine, instead of making a judgement call about your character for this, I will just let it go. I have been the test case before and don't mind it. I know others will ride my coattails over it. It won't be the first time.

Sorry, but you are wrong and making false claims. I am not going on what the DOJ tells me, I can read the penal code and see if it makes sense. You sound like a 10% parrot. I could go over the details, but that has already been done and it seems clear that you are not listening either.Classic hypocritical kemasa. Cry about personal attacks and then call bdsmchs a parrot. You are not going on what the DOJ tells you? Then why over the history of this have you always asked someone to call the DOJ and ask about this? Why have you always told us to be careful of what we type on here because the DOJ is always reading? You sure seem concerned with what the DOJ says.

You could take a poll and see what the results are, but that would not go your way most likely and that would be unacceptable for you and Wes.We could take a poll, but it would be another classic kemasa act of futility. Polls are pointless. I could get a bunch of people to get on here and vote to back me up. Does popular opinion make my case any stronger or weaker? NO!

Give up on the side shows kemasa. Quit playing the victim card, quit bringing up side issues, and quit worrying about polls.

It is time to pony up. Either show a specific State definition of single sale or admit there isn't one. Even the handgun transaction thing is a side show. Either a single sale ends when you say it ends or there is no definition of when it ends. It really is that simple.

kemasa
11-22-2009, 10:54 AM
Your claims that a single sale can last days and additional firearms added on to it is just your opinion without any support and in additional conflicts with the words "single sale".

At least you can admit that the BATFE does not define what a sale is, so then why do you try to use what they state as a firearm transaction and use that to claim it has something to do with a "single sale"? The issue has nothing to do with what the Feds allow.

Perhaps you should use common sense instead of Quickbooks to define what a single sale is.

Sorry, you are completely wrong when you claim "it is your job to state where it says I can't". It is not my job at all. The code states that it can only be done as a single sale, which does not mean you can claim that to be anything that you want it to be. You do love to try to tell others what they must do in order to prove things to you, yet you refuse to do what you want others to do. There is a word for that.

You said that the DOJ had no authority to ask how many long guns were sold, but now you say that nothing prevents them from asking. Seems like a conflict to me.

You should know what the differences are with family transfers between CA and Federal law. Why should I have to spoon feed you everything.

Your claims as to my credibility and good will are joke. I am trying to stop you from violating the law, isn't that enough? You claim that I publically seek to have you busted, but according to you, you are not breaking the law, so how would I manage to have you busted if you are not breaking the law? That seems to show that you know that you are breaking the law.

I have given a definition of a single sale, but you just don't like it and claim that the Feds let you add firearms, so that CA should also allow that.

I do not think that was you say makes sense, as it does not. I think that what you claim the law should be makes sense, but as you know, the law does not have to make sense.

I tell people to call the DOJ as they are the ones who enforce the law. As such, if you have a question you should ask them rather than some random person. If you don't you will may get the wrong answer. I also don't think it is a good idea to post in a public place that you are violating the law. You think it is best to not ask those who enforce the laws??

CHS
11-22-2009, 2:34 PM
Your claims that a single sale can last days and additional firearms added on to it is just your opinion without any support and in additional conflicts with the words "single sale".


Dictionary definitions DO NOT MATTER when it comes to the law. You must use the law's definition first, and THEN go to the dictionary.

In this case, California law does not define what a single sale is so you need to look at Federal Law. The feds basically define it as everything that happens between the customer certifying the 4473 and the dealer signing it.

Ok, great. Here in CA, it takes a minimum of 10 days between when the customer certifies the 4473 and when the dealer signs it. That's 10, 24-hour periods for a "single sale".

So, customer comes in, pays for a handgun, certifies his 4473, and then leaves. 241 hours later he comes back to pick up the handgun, but before re-certification he decides he wants another long gun. Since the 4473 hasn't been re-certified yet, and the dealer hasn't signed the 4473 out, that sale is still open, still pending and still "single".

The dictionary definition DOES NOT MATTER.

kemasa
11-22-2009, 4:00 PM
The Feds do not talk about a "single sale". The 4473 is in regards to a firearm transaction. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Please show me where it is defined that the "sale is still open". The transaction has not been completed, but that is different than the sale. You are confusing the sale with a firearm transaction. The Feds view what a firearm transaction differently than CA does, in case you had not noticed. So even if the Feds defined what a "sale" was, it would not apply to CA.

tenpercentfirearms
11-22-2009, 8:39 PM
Please show me where it is defined that the "sale is still open".Show me where it says the transaction is closed. You can't.

The transaction has not been completed, but that is different than the sale. You are confusing the sale with a firearm transaction. The Feds view what a firearm transaction differently than CA does, in case you had not noticed. So even if the Feds defined what a "sale" was, it would not apply to CA.
Again, this is your opinion absent of any sort of legal definition or evidence. How you can say the transaction is not completed, but the sale is seems awfully fishy.

I am not even going to bother responding to your other post until you clean up your grammar and make it presentable for reading. Plus, you continue to shirk your responsibility of showing the definition of a single sale. You are clearly out of an argument.

You tried your best kemasa, but you just couldn't make the grade. Sorry.

halifax
11-23-2009, 3:45 AM
If we need to look elsewhere for a definition of a "sale", one body of CA law sees a "sale" as concluding only when the buyer has taken possession of the tangible goods being sold. If the tax rate has changed from the time an item is paid for and the time it is picked up, the new tax rate applies. Thus, the "sale" does not conclude until possession has changed.

Just a thought.

tenpercentfirearms
11-23-2009, 5:31 AM
If we need to look elsewhere for a definition of a "sale", one body of CA law sees a "sale" as concluding only when the buyer has taken possession of the tangible goods being sold. If the tax rate has changed from the time an item is paid for and the time it is picked up, the new tax rate applies. Thus, the "sale" does not conclude until possession has changed.

Just a thought.

Good point. A customer who paid for the gun before the tax increase and picked it up after the tax increase would be pretty pissed if you asked for more money, but that is what the BOE wants you to do. When that happened last year. we paid the extra tax for anyone who was paid in full before the increase. Those guys that just put some money down paid the new tax.

I think we all realize that the sale is not closed until the customer picks up. Again, absent some DOJ definition, the BOE and the feds seem to support this line of thinking as well.

kemasa
11-23-2009, 10:45 AM
Clearly, you don't understand the difference between a sale and a transaction. In CA, you can have one sale of handguns, but two transactions to report.

Nice attack on grammer issues, but clearly that is just an excuse for you to not respond, most likely because you can't.

Also, I have no responsibility of showing a definition, so I can not "shirk my responsibility". How interesting that you think that is my job and you don't think that you have to do anything. As you say, clearly you (Wes) are out of an argument.

As it is said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I would also suggest that you (Wes) not claim to be the one who judges me. You are not the judge here, although I know you want to be.

So, if a remote customer buys a firearm from you, the sale is not over until the firearm is picked up at the other FFL? Also, if the sale is not over, then no return is required if the customer changes their mind, so you would need to refund the total amount without any restocking fees.

tenpercentfirearms
11-23-2009, 8:48 PM
Clearly, you don't understand the difference between a sale and a transaction. In CA, you can have one sale of handguns, but two transactions to report.

Nice attack on grammer issues, but clearly that is just an excuse for you to not respond, most likely because you can't.

Also, I have no responsibility of showing a definition, so I can not "shirk my responsibility". How interesting that you think that is my job and you don't think that you have to do anything. As you say, clearly you (Wes) are out of an argument.

As it is said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I would also suggest that you (Wes) not claim to be the one who judges me. You are not the judge here, although I know you want to be.

So, if a remote customer buys a firearm from you, the sale is not over until the firearm is picked up at the other FFL? Also, if the sale is not over, then no return is required if the customer changes their mind, so you would need to refund the total amount without any restocking fees.

All irrelevant. Were you going to post up the section that defines the length of a single sale or are you going to continue to bring up a bunch of side issues?

Sorry kemasa, I will judge you all day long based off of your arguments. I am judging you to be seriously lacking in the realm of penal code and legal comprehension. I judge you to be very effective at dodging the issue and going off on side tangents.

If you claim you we are breaking the law, it is your responsibility to show us where. You continue to state we are violating the language of the "single sale", yet you cannot show us a definition of a single sale. You have no case so you go off on tangents. We can start reading you like a book!

If a remote customer buys a firearm for me, it is just like a transaction in the shop. When the sales receipt is printed and the firearm leaves the building, the sale is finished. However, this is clearly a horrible point to bring up as there is no ten day wait for me to ship, I can ship the firearms whenever I want, in any number of packages I want, and the electronic register is not used. And you want us to take you seriously?

A clear return policy would specify whether you can return the merchandise or not. A company can make up any sales return policy they want and you as a consumer do not have to buy from that seller if you don't agree.

Again, pointless babble from kemasa and he is clearly not interested in showing us a definition of the length of time of a single sale.

I seriously wish you were a DOJ prosecutor. This would be a slaughter. Thankfully I think the DOJ has a better grasp than this.

Mike's Custom
11-24-2009, 12:23 AM
If we need to look elsewhere for a definition of a "sale", one body of CA law sees a "sale" as concluding only when the buyer has taken possession of the tangible goods being sold. If the tax rate has changed from the time an item is paid for and the time it is picked up, the new tax rate applies. Thus, the "sale" does not conclude until possession has changed.

Just a thought.

This is what I was told by the DOJ of what a sale is. If the firearm is never picked up it is never sold.

kemasa
11-24-2009, 10:31 AM
Wes, you love to claim what I should do, but you refuse to do it yourself. You love to dodge questions you can't answer and try to push things on others. You claim that I have some responsibility, so please show me where you come up with that. I don't have any responsibility to explain simple English to you. I am sorry you can not understand what a single sale is, but clearly you understand that your view is different than the DOJ, which presents a bit of an issue for you.

Please present your basis for claiming what your definition of a single sale is. Please don't refer to the BATF as they don't talk about sales, single or otherwise, so that attempt is bogus.

Please explain how I am attempting to get you shutdown if you are following the law.

Attacks don't back up your point of view.

tenpercentfirearms
11-24-2009, 9:31 PM
Wes, you love to claim what I should do, but you refuse to do it yourself. You love to dodge questions you can't answer and try to push things on others. You claim that I have some responsibility, so please show me where you come up with that. I don't have any responsibility to explain simple English to you. I am sorry you can not understand what a single sale is, but clearly you understand that your view is different than the DOJ, which presents a bit of an issue for you.

Please present your basis for claiming what your definition of a single sale is. Please don't refer to the BATF as they don't talk about sales, single or otherwise, so that attempt is bogus.

Please explain how I am attempting to get you shutdown if you are following the law.

Attacks don't back up your point of view.
I guess you only read what you want. Read the post directly above your last. Mike said the DOJ told him that was what a sale was. Are you calling Mike a liar?

You are claiming I am breaking the law. Common sense would indicate that if you make a claim I am breaking the law, you have a responsibility to show where I am breaking the law. You continue to fail to show where the length of a single sale is defined by the California Government.

I have accepted your inability to back up your claims as an acknowledgment that you in fact don't have any proof. If you haven't seen my reasoning in any of my posts above, I can't help it if you're blind, illiterate, or just plain dense. I have clearly outlined my position over and over with you. The simple things you need to prove me wrong are clear, but you have consistently failed to provide the definitions.

Fact: you have not shown the State definition of a single sale.

Fact: I have given my definition of a single sale, which has not been shown to contradict any State definition.

Fact: You lose this debate. Brush up on your skills and try again on the next issue.

Give up on your dying ship and hop in the life boat. You don't have to go down with the ship. It is OK to admit that your boat couldn't stand up to mine and I sunk you. Live to fight another day man!

kemasa
11-25-2009, 10:06 AM
Based on what you said, you have broken the law. You admitted to including a long gun on a handgun DROS. You have admitted to adding a firearm after the DROS was submitted and therefore you might not have waited the 10 day waiting period. Mike's comments does not allow for adding firearms to the DROS after it was submitted, does it? It talks about a sale, not a single sale. That extra word is important as it is there for a reason.

All of that does not matter though, because you claim that I am trying to get you shutdown. If you are not breaking the law, as you say, then how and why could I possibly get you shutdown? Clearly, your response shows that you know what you are doing is wrong and that your statements/claims are false, yet you want others to do what you are promoting, most likely so that they can be the test victims.

Fact: you have not shown the State definition of a single sale. Your definition clearly ignores the word "single".

Fact: You are not the judge of who wins or loses the debate. In this case, the CA DOJ is the one to decide. You can help decrease the time by providing all the required information to them so that they can have the evidence to decide.

I would strongly suggest that you give up on your sinking ship and start following the law and stop promoting others to violate the law before you earn yourself free room and board.

tenpercentfirearms
11-25-2009, 6:51 PM
Fact: you have not shown the State definition of a single sale. Your definition clearly ignores the word "single".

I have clearly stated there is no State definition of a single sale. Absent of a State definition, it is up to me to decide. You claim I can't do that or that my definition is flawed. Time and time again, you won't provide evidence to back up your claim.

Really, you need to only answer that point and that point only. You fail this debate because you won't. It really is that simple.

And just because Mike didn't put "single" in front of his "sale", if your reading comprehension was up to par, you would have known that is exactly what he is talking about. He is saying your single sale is not over until pick up.

While you are at it, show us where each and every gun has to go through a ten day background check. I would be interested to see it. Or are you just making things up again?

kemasa
11-26-2009, 9:44 AM
As I said, not every word is defined in the penal code, but that does not mean you can claim it to mean anything that you want.

You clearly want to ignore the word "single". If they had mean just a sale, then it would have said that. You want to ignore that since it would harm your position. As such, I have answered that point.

I am glad that you can speak for Mike and know exactly what he is talking about when he does not use specific words. Then again, you clearly what to be the ultimate judge of everything, as shown in your previous posts.

I did not say a "ten day background check". The background check is much faster than that, often within minutes, but you still can not deliver the firearm until 10 days after the DROS is submitted.

So, you are claiming that there is no 10 day waiting period? You are supposed to be a fully licensed FFL, so I would think that you would know how you run your business, but instead you want me to spoon feed you everything, but then again you refuse to read the penal code in any way other than your warped manner. You can see PC 12071 & 12072. It won't do any good since you think that you can add a long gun to a handgun DROS and you think that you can add long guns after the DROS is submitted.

It is amazing at what you come up with.

tenpercentfirearms
11-26-2009, 6:02 PM
As I said, not every word is defined in the penal code, but that does not mean you can claim it to mean anything that you want.If only I was making that simpleton of an argument. We have clearly shown where not only do the feds consider a 4473 open until the seller signs the document upon delivery, but also where the BOE claims a sale is not over until delivery and point of sale software also allows for this. I am not just making it mean whatever I want. A single sale can be multiple long guns. It does not state how long that single sale lasts. Absent a state definition, we are not held to your standard of what a single sale is. It really is that simple.

You clearly want to ignore the word "single". If they had mean just a sale, then it would have said that. You want to ignore that since it would harm your position. As such, I have answered that point.LOL. Yeah I ignored it all right, that is why I have addressed that the state did not state how long a "single sale" lasts over and over again. For some reason you keep missing it.

I am glad that you can speak for Mike and know exactly what he is talking about when he does not use specific words. Then again, you clearly what to be the ultimate judge of everything, as shown in your previous posts.More babble on your part. Just keep hoping if you go off on enough tangents, we will forget you have no case and suddenly take you seriously.

I did not say a "ten day background check". The background check is much faster than that, often within minutes, but you still can not deliver the firearm until 10 days after the DROS is submitted.Blah, blah, blah.

So, you are claiming that there is no 10 day waiting period? You are supposed to be a fully licensed FFL, so I would think that you would know how you run your business, but instead you want me to spoon feed you everything, but then again you refuse to read the penal code in any way other than your warped manner. You can see PC 12071 & 12072. It won't do any good since you think that you can add a long gun to a handgun DROS and you think that you can add long guns after the DROS is submitted.

It is amazing at what you come up with.More tangents on your part. You stated, "You have admitted to adding a firearm after the DROS was submitted and therefore you might not have waited the 10 day waiting period." Does the penal code specify that every gun must go through a 10 day waiting period? Clearly we as dealers must wait ten 24 hour periods after DROS start to deliver firearms. Your tangent of even pretending that I somehow don't know that makes it pretty evident you have nothing going for you here.

If you are claiming that somehow adding long guns to a DROS violates the "not have waited the 10 day waiting period", then back it up. Again, this isn't you spoon feeding me. This is you making a claim and having to back it up.

Every single time I have claimed I have an ability to do something, I have backed it up with clear references to penal code or CCR. You just like to claim things are illegal and you give no support.

You have consistently done so ever since you started on this topic threads ago. And every time people call you on it.

So, where does it say if I add long guns to a DROS I am not waiting the ten day waiting period? You claimed it, back it up.

Thank you for finally admitting the penal code makes no mention of how long a single sale lasts. You pretty much have no case now. I will stop asking you for the definition.

kemasa
11-27-2009, 4:02 PM
Yeah, Wes, you are just so good that you make all these claims against me, but you refuse to back what you are saying. You love to ignore the word "single" and you refuse to answer how I am trying to shut you down if you are not doing anything wrong.

The Feds and the BOE do not talk about a "single sale", yet you want to claim that when it is mentioned about a "sale", it is the same as a "single sale". You refuse to explain why the word "single" is there and what it means. It has been pointed out time and time again that what the Feds consider a firearm transaction is quite different than what CA considers a firearm transaction, yet you continue to claim that what the Feds consider a firearm transaction has something to do what what CA considers is a single sale.

If you sell an additional longgun on the day a person is picking up another longgun, then there has been no 10 day waiting period, but then again you claim that there is no 10 day waiting period on every firearm.

While you have referenced the penal code, at times, you try to claim it means what you want it to, rather than what it actually says.

While the penal code does not define the word single, the dictionary does, and since it does not define it, you need to use the dictionary and/or ask what is meant by it, rather than just claim it is what you want it to be, without it making any sense.

tenpercentfirearms
11-28-2009, 7:31 AM
Yeah, Wes, you are just so good that you make all these claims against me, but you refuse to back what you are saying. You love to ignore the word "single" and you refuse to answer how I am trying to shut you down if you are not doing anything wrong.

The Feds and the BOE do not talk about a "single sale", yet you want to claim that when it is mentioned about a "sale", it is the same as a "single sale". You refuse to explain why the word "single" is there and what it means. It has been pointed out time and time again that what the Feds consider a firearm transaction is quite different than what CA considers a firearm transaction, yet you continue to claim that what the Feds consider a firearm transaction has something to do what what CA considers is a single sale.

If you sell an additional longgun on the day a person is picking up another longgun, then there has been no 10 day waiting period, but then again you claim that there is no 10 day waiting period on every firearm.

While you have referenced the penal code, at times, you try to claim it means what you want it to, rather than what it actually says.

While the penal code does not define the word single, the dictionary does, and since it does not define it, you need to use the dictionary and/or ask what is meant by it, rather than just claim it is what you want it to be, without it making any sense.

LOL. I guess we are done here. Not only have I explained several times that single means a sale up until you sign the guns out and have the on a single sales receipt, but you're claiming you need to use the dictionary to define penal code pretty much shows what level you are at. Then throw in there your false claim that I stated there is no ten day waiting period, and you have your trifecta of absurdity.

Sorry kemasa, you have officially lost. You aren't even being rational anymore. Your blind lust to be right has clouded any shred of logical position you might have once had.

I guess I hit a nerve when I said you were more interested in getting dealers busted than debating this topic since that is the only thing you can go back on. Actively seeking to get dealers to give up their 4473 numbers so you can go make a phone call to your DOJ masters and let them know about deviations from their master plan pretty much qualifies you.

Sure I don't know if you made a phone call or not, but hey, why not make it up. You sure seem to like making things up. Like my claiming there is no ten day wait or that the dictionary definition must be used for defining penal code. LOL!

Crap, I get it now. This whole thing was a joke. You were pulling my chain the whole time. I really thought you were serious. Ok, you guys got me. The rest of you knew he wasn't serious didn't you? Bastards. That was a cruel trick.

kemasa
11-28-2009, 10:43 AM
You have explained nothing regarding a single sale. You have tried to make claims which are not related to "single sale", but those claims are bogus.

Read what YOU wrote regarding the waiting period of firearms ("Does the penal code specify that every gun must go through a 10 day waiting period?"). You claimed that handguns were not firearm transactions, then claimed that you never said that and when specifically quoted, you ignored it. While you might want to make claims about me, the reality is that you are not rational, you have no understanding of who the real judge is, but it is not you. You are resorting to personal attacks with the claims not "blind lust" and other such garbage, but that shows that you really don't have a valid argument.

You did not "hit a nerve" with your bogus claim that I am trying to get you shutdown. It showed that you are completely out of gas and you have to resort to making bogus claims. You again refuse to answer how I am trying to get you shutdown if you are not violating the law. If you think that I can get you shutdown by your being foolish enough to post of your illegal activities on a public forum, then you really need to get some help. You are so childish to keep claiming that I have "DOJ masters". Get off the playground and grow up. Take some personal responsibility to your own actions, both with what you are doing and with posting in a public forum about it.

At least you admit you are willing to make things up, which shows that you are a liar and nothing that you say can be trusted. I am not making anything up, unlike you. Clearly you have some motive for wanting others to think that I am calling the DOJ on you, instead of your taking responsibility for what you are posting in a public forum, which is known to be read by the DOJ. But you still refuse to explain how if anyone were to call the DOJ that it would present a problem for you since you claim that you are not breaking the law.

Yes, it is a joke. The joke is on you for posting your strange reading of the penal code and admitting to what you are doing in a public forum. It is funny that you don't even remember what you have said when you claim you did not say what you said.

Mssr. Eleganté
11-28-2009, 11:48 AM
So it sounds like what Kemasa is saying is that whenever the Penal Code is unclear on the definition of a word, we need to give more weight to the definition Kemasa makes up than to other sources. What's so hard to understand about that Wes? :p

kemasa
11-28-2009, 11:59 AM
Don't make things up like Wes does. The simple fact is that when the word is not defined in the penal, you are not able to make up the definition yourself. You can look to the dictionary and other sources. Trying to claim that the BATF 4473 firearm transaction has something to say about a "single sale" is making things up. Trying to claim that the BOE definition of a sale has something to say about a "single sale" is making things up.

I am not making up the definition to the word "single", unlike Wes, who trying to claim that it can be multiple sales at different times.

Mssr. Eleganté
11-28-2009, 12:21 PM
I am not making up the definition to the word "single", unlike Wes, who trying to claim that it can be multiple sales at different times.

Wes is actually backing up his claims with evidence. You are just ridiculing his claims and giving no evidence to support your counter claims, which I've noticed you do in other threads.

But I've got to go. I need to hook up the multiple items of audio/video equipment that bought over the past few days at Amazon's single (black friday) sale. :p

kemasa
11-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Sorry, but Wes is not backing up his claims with valid data. It is interesting that, just like with gangs, people want to back up their friends, regardless of whether they are wrong or not.

Perhaps Wes should comment on your grammar with respect to your last sentence. I am sure he won't do that since that would not be nice to do to a fellow gang member. So, you want to compare a store's "sale" to a sale of items? Perhaps you should also bring up the concept of a single "sail" in there too, or should I say two? Don't forget that a store's sale involves multiple people, multiple items and multiple sales, in a single store sale. I guess that is the type of evidence that you find acceptable.

Mssr. Eleganté
11-28-2009, 12:56 PM
Sorry, but Wes is not backing up his claims with valid data. It is interesting that, just like with gangs, people want to back up their friends, regardless of whether they are wrong or not.

Perhaps Wes should comment on your grammar with respect to your last sentence. I am sure he won't do that since that would not be nice to do to a fellow gang member.

Look, just because Wes and I have matching tattoos and we held up one liquor store together doesn't mean we are all of a sudden "friends" or in a "gang". If we had engaged in a single spree of multiple liquor store holdups over a 10 day period then maybe I'd say we were gang buddies.

kemasa
11-28-2009, 1:05 PM
There are many other aspects to which you seem to be similar to Wes :-).

tenpercentfirearms
11-28-2009, 10:01 PM
So it sounds like what Kemasa is saying is that whenever the Penal Code is unclear on the definition of a word, we need to give more weight to the definition Kemasa makes up than to other sources. What's so hard to understand about that Wes? :p

So how long did you know kemasa was jerking my chain? Is there another thread where everyone is laughing at me?

yzernie
11-28-2009, 10:05 PM
I have read this entire thread and now have a headache. I don't know either one of you so my opinion is from someone who is nothing more than an observer to this bantering back and forth.

My only question to you kemasa is this....why do you have the want or desire to try and police someone who you have no vested interest in?

halifax
11-29-2009, 4:07 AM
I have read this entire thread and now have a headache. I don't know either one of you so my opinion is from someone who is nothing more than an observer to this bantering back and forth.

My only question to you kemasa is this....why do you have the want or desire to try and police someone who you have no vested interest in?

Sounds very similar to my question in a related thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3228157&postcount=14

kemasa
11-29-2009, 7:46 AM
As explained in my previous posts (and explained in the next post after the post halifax provided a link to), I do not want him promoting something which is illegal because I don't want to see other FFLs doing what he claims is legal and then getting shutdown. If you notice, the number of FFLs are going down all the time. I don't want to see in the news that a FFL was shutdown due to illegal activities. It makes the firearms industry look bad. It is a bad idea to promote illegal activities on a public forum.

It is interesting that halifax posted the link as a single message, yet the next message, my message, explains why. Are people not listening? Or are they trying to present a view that is false?

I am also curious as to whether others agree with Wes and are actually adding long guns to a handgun DROS and/or adding longguns after the original longgun DROS was submitted. It might be that others are bright enough to not admit to such things in a public forum, or might lie about it.

tenpercentfirearms
11-29-2009, 8:05 AM
I am also curious as to whether others agree with Wes and are actually adding long guns to a handgun DROS and/or adding longguns after the original longgun DROS was submitted. It might be that others are bright enough to not admit to such things in a public forum, or might lie about it.
I am curious why you care? This isn't a popularity contest. You think it is illegal and in your mind you have decided it is illegal. If everyone else was doing something illegal, would you suddenly start doing it because more people claim to do it?

You supposedly made your case, stick to it. Why do you need to know who else is doing it? So you can ask them for their 4473 numbers too? So you can call up the DOJ and mention who else they should go audit?

You would think you were under contract with the DOJ. Even if others were doing it, they certainly aren't going to mention it with you around so you can harp on them and threaten to have them shut down too.

Again dealers, read this and make up your own mind. I think it is clear who has made an excellent defense using penal code, federal guidelines, BOE rules, and logical arguments. I think it is also clear who came up glaringly short in their rebuttal.

In the end most of you should decide the $25 simply isn't worth the trouble. That is your choice. When I get audited, I will let you know how it goes.

kemasa
11-29-2009, 8:25 AM
Wes, you are funny, why in the world would you think that I would do something illegal because others are doing it? Can't I be curious? In part it is because there are those who are defending you, but if they refuse to do what you are claiming is legal, it is a bit of a problem for their position of defending you. Where do you get the idea that I was not sticking to my case? That seems to be just another made up thing by you in order to try to defend your position.

Again, you claim that I am trying to have you shutdown, but you refuse to explain how I am doing that since you claim that everything that you are doing is legal. You love to make things up and make baseless attacks against those who do not agree with you. You also claim that I am going to call the DOJ, but as explained, the DOJ reads this forum, so I don't need to do anything, but I know it sounds better for you to attack me on that.

Wes, you have an inflated opinion of your arguments. Never once did you provide anything which talks about a "single sale", so your argument is lacking and not logical at all. You have confused a Federal firearm transaction with a CA firearm transaction, which are quite different. Yes, you did come up glaringly short in your rebuttal numerous times.

At least you admit that it is not worth the trouble play your game, admitting that what you are doing is questionable, at best. You would be better served by trying to get the laws changed so that what you want to do is legal, as it should be, just not how it is now.

yzernie
11-29-2009, 11:37 AM
This is what I see and it is only my opinion...and again, I do not know either of these two folks here...

The argument of worrying about FFLs getting shut down in Cali is, IMHO, humorous. I would never think of coming onto a public message board and blasting some other person about how they do business. Why in the world would anyone care about how some other person runs their business?

My outlook is this...if someone in the same field is experiencing poor business practices (and I'm not saying anyone is) they have to answer for what they do. If it all works out for them fine. Conversely, if they get shut down that is fine too.

A wise man told me this when I was growing up..."If it doesn't involve you, keep your nose out of it".

tenpercentfirearms
11-29-2009, 7:22 PM
Wes, you have an inflated opinion of your arguments. Never once did you provide anything which talks about a "single sale", so your argument is lacking and not logical at all. You have confused a Federal firearm transaction with a CA firearm transaction, which are quite different. Yes, you did come up glaringly short in your rebuttal numerous times.This is the part that makes me laugh the most.

For proof I have addressed single sale.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3364408&postcount=16 At the bottom.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3379745&postcount=28 Through the whole thing.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3384516&postcount=33 In the middle.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3394994&postcount=40 Whole post.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3399137&postcount=44 Another one.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3400008&postcount=46 Whole post.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3412542&postcount=53 Whole post.

That is seven times I "provided" specific evidence dealing with a single sale in this thread alone. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when keep repeating the same false claims over and over again. How are you going to ignore those seven references to what you claim I never discussed? This will be entertaining.

Second, I have never confused a federal firearms transaction with a state transaction. You simply can't fathom that if the state does not prohibit something or does not give adequate definition, then there is nothing the state can do about it. Which leaves me simply following federal law. Again, this has also been explained to you several times and you simply don't get it. But go ahead and make a blind accusation that flies in the face of this entire thread. If you say it enough times to yourself, it might come true. Just keep ignoring my clearly laid out arguments and keep arguing about something trivial or unrelated to this case.

At least you admit that it is not worth the trouble play your game, admitting that what you are doing is questionable, at best. You would be better served by trying to get the laws changed so that what you want to do is legal, as it should be, just not how it is now.Obviously what we are talking about is questionable. The DOJ might question you on it as it serves their financial interests. That is why I have provided a solid foundation to answer those questions.

You seem to think that getting the California legislature to change this confusing penal code in favor of the gun rights movement would be a wiser use of my time. That is clearly a fools errand. You might not like it, but actually challenging the law in practice will affect change much sooner than trying to change the law. The only problem is some liberty loving citizens are going to have to do it and that makes the people who like their comfortable cages nervous.

kemasa
11-30-2009, 9:09 AM
The problem is when a FFL is posting in a public forum promoting and encouraging others to do something which is illegal or questionable at best. In the case of firearms, illegal activities can adversely affect everyone. Take a look at the laws that pass, it is not because everyone is doing something wrong, it is because of the few, who get noticed, and that is used as an excuse. If Wes wanted to do what he is promoting and not promote it in public, then there would not be much of an issue. The problem is that he keeps says that it is perfectly fine to do it, although recently admitted that it is questionable.

Wes loves to claim that he backed up his "single sale", but it is always with unrelated issues, none of which mentions a "single sale". He loves to try to include the Federal law, which allows for adding firearms, but neglects to factor in that the state specifically mentions "single sale". The word "single" is a common word, which for most people does not have to be defined. It is funny that he claims that because the CA Penal Code does not define it, he is free to use the Federal Law, which is not related to the term "single sale" at all.

While is loves to attack others with his "DOJ masters", it is that if he really thought that what he was doing was perfectly legal, he would not call it questionable and would not play the game that he is playing with his "DOJ masters". He is trying to get others to join in his fool's errand, so he is not alone in this, but hopefully most others will have enough sense to stay legal.

Perhaps Wes does not realize this, but the law has changed for the better. In the past, a FFL had to endure the waiting period, but that is now gone. His personal attacks with the "DOJ masters" and "people who like their comfortable cages" shows that he wants to use emotional means to try to win the debate, but does not use real facts. Clearly, he wants anyone who is willing to stand up to him to go away and shutup so that he can spew his bogus arguments without a challenge.

So Wes, if you REALLY want to challenge the law in practice, then why do you claim I am trying to get you shutdown? You should welcome the challenge and call the CA DOJ yourself and give them all the information as to what you claim you are doing. That will ensure that you are doing what you say, which is to challenge the law in practice. Oh, but it seems clear that you don't personally want to challenge the law in practice since you clearly don't want to do that nor do you want anyone else to contact the CA DOJ to help you in your endeavors. Could it be that what you really want is for fool others into doing what you claim is legal and you claim to do so that they, not you, can be the test case? I think your words show that to be the case.

BONECUTTER
11-30-2009, 10:14 AM
This post is what I hate about selling at gun shows. There is always that one guy who just won't shut up about what I'm doing is illegal. I don't even try to explain to them legalities anymore. I tell them they are wrong and if they want to come back with the penal code I'm breaking they are welcome to.

Wes has more than covered his rear in explainations. Yes, the DOJ reads this. If they thought they had a slam dunk case and found that he was clearly in the wrong I'm sure they would of already served a warrant and had charges files.

You keep talking about common sense like it means anything when it comes to laws. Remember when the CA hand free cellphone law went into effect. Common sense would say that would include texting but it didn't. They had to add that in later because there was nothing to charge all these people with.

The penal code says what you can't do. Not what you can. Show the specific code he is breaking that they will file charges with or just give it a rest already. No one is trying to convice you to change your ways nor is anyone trying to convince other FFL's to jump on the bangwagon.

kemasa
11-30-2009, 10:24 AM
I did not say the law was based on common sense, just that when using terms like "single sale", you need to use some common sense if you don't find a specific definition of it.

I disagree that Wes has explained and I have pointed out the holes, but he won't listen and instead insists on claiming that he can use the BATF firearm transaction to decide what to do with respect to CA law which says "single sale".

Wes is trying to convince others to do what he is suggesting. I have shown the penal code.

If the law was based in common sense, only driving while distracted would be needed with respect to cell phones, kids, pets, etc.

BONECUTTER
11-30-2009, 10:41 AM
I did not say the law was based on common sense, just that when using terms like "single sale", you need to use some common sense if you don't find a specific definition of it.

I disagree that Wes has explained and I have pointed out the holes, but he won't listen and instead insists on claiming that he can use the BATF firearm transaction to decide what to do with respect to CA law which says "single sale".


CA doesn't define "single sale" so they don't have the penal code to charge him with a crime.

Instead of him saying I assumed he is using the next logical law based on BATF trasactions. (Sounds logical doesn't it?)

So if he is not breaking Federal law and not breaking State law.... Hes not breaking the law.

Even though he appears to be in the right here I have yet to see him try to convince other to do this as you are suggesting. You don't feel comfortable doing this.....as I'm sure many other FFL's don't, so just tell your customers that you don't and move on.

kemasa
11-30-2009, 10:49 AM
It is your opinion that they can not charge him with a crime, which in fact is false. He might be able to be found not guilty, but they most certainly can charge him.

It would only be logical to use Federal law IF the Federal law mentioned the term "single sale". Without a definition in the penal code, it is reasonable and logical to use the dictionary to see what the word single means and how it would apply in this case.

Wes is promoting his claim that you can add a long gun to a handgun DROS and adding long guns after the DROS is submitted. Read what he has said and that is clearly promoting it.

If Wes really believes that what he is promoting is legal, then please explain why he would claim that I am trying to get him shutdown. That seems to be a serious conflict in his statements.

BONECUTTER
11-30-2009, 11:06 AM
It is your opinion that they can not charge him with a crime, which in fact is false. He might be able to be found not guilty, but they most certainly can charge him.

Anyone can be charged for anything.... Doesn't mean its not legal.

It would only be logical to use Federal law IF the Federal law mentioned the term "single sale". Without a definition in the penal code, it is reasonable and logical to use the dictionary to see what the word single means and how it would apply in this case.

Logic mean nothing. Look back at the cell phone thing. If you don't want someone doing something...put it in the penal code.

Wes is promoting his claim that you can add a long gun to a handgun DROS and adding long guns after the DROS is submitted. Read what he has said and that is clearly promoting it.

Saying something is legal is different from advising other to do it. He has not tried to convice others to do this as you are implying.

If Wes really believes that what he is promoting is legal, then please explain why he would claim that I am trying to get him shutdown. That seems to be a serious conflict in his statements.

You seem to want him to throw this in the DOJ's face. Why....even legal would you want him to call them as say "guess what Im doing.....ha ha ha".
We piss off the DOJ enough as it is. Why add fuel....

kemasa
11-30-2009, 11:24 AM
Well, you agree that he can be charged, which conflicts with what you said. There is only one way to find out if it is legal or not.

Logic means nothing? Didn't you say that what Wes was saying with respect the CA law and Federal law sounded logical? Why do you now say say logic means nothing when it is pointed out that the Federal law talks about a firearm transaction and CA law talks about a single sale, not to mention that a CA firearm transaction is quite different than a Federal firearm transaction. The CA penal code says what you need to do. It states that one type of transaction is submitted for a handgun and another type for a non-handgun, which means that if you try to do both with one, you are violating the penal code. It mentions that you can include multiple long guns, but limits it to a single sale. If it is not a single sale, then it is prohibited and you can not define that a single sale is anything that you want it to be.

Look at what Wes said with respect to getting the law viewed differently. By this, he claims that he wants the law challenged and since he is making public statements about what he is doing, or at least claiming to do, that he wants to be the test case. More likely, he is making false claims and wants someone else to be the test case, which is why he is claiming that I am trying to get him shutdown, when the reality is that he is the one posting what he is doing.

Ok, so you say that "we" piss of the DOJ enough as it is and ask why add fuel, so since it is known that the DOJ reads this forum, doesn't that mean that Wes, by posting what he is claiming to be doing, is, in fact, throwing it in the face of the DOJ and adding fuel to the fire by pissing them off?

You did not answer my question though.

BONECUTTER
11-30-2009, 11:45 AM
Well, you agree that he can be charged, which conflicts with what you said. There is only one way to find out if it is legal or not.

Never said they couldn't charge....said they don't have the penal code for a legitimate charge.

Logic means nothing? Didn't you say that what Wes was saying with respect the CA law and Federal law sounded logical? Why do you now say say logic means nothing when it is pointed out that the Federal law talks about a firearm transaction and CA law talks about a single sale, not to mention that a CA firearm transaction is quite different than a Federal firearm transaction. The CA penal code says what you need to do. It states that one type of transaction is submitted for a handgun and another type for a non-handgun, which means that if you try to do both with one, you are violating the penal code. It mentions that you can include multiple long guns, but limits it to a single sale. If it is not a single sale, then it is prohibited and you can not define that a single sale is anything that you want it to be.

More word twisting and turning..... Not saying a single sale is anything I want it to be.....Maybe Ill go back and take logic and common sense and just used what the AFT says....hows that for twisting words around.

Look at what Wes said with respect to getting the law viewed differently. By this, he claims that he wants the law challenged and since he is making public statements about what he is doing, or at least claiming to do, that he wants to be the test case. More likely, he is making false claims and wants someone else to be the test case, which is why he is claiming that I am trying to get him shutdown, when the reality is that he is the one posting what he is doing.

Thats speculation....he must be out to get you and trick you into this devious plan.....wait....he is so greedy he wants all other FFL's shut down.

Ok, so you say that "we" piss of the DOJ enough as it is and ask why add fuel, so since it is known that the DOJ reads this forum, doesn't that mean that Wes, by posting what he is claiming to be doing, is, in fact, throwing it in the face of the DOJ and adding fuel to the fire by pissing them off?

No...its not...legal or not legal the DOJ can audit more often and in sure they can find stuff to make life hard if they want to. This is purely a debate on the legalities of adding a long gun. One is looks like you have lost.

You did not answer my question though.

I don't have to. Mostly because I don't care. I don't get worked up by this or bothered if you agree or not. To me you are another guy at a gunshow who will argue to he is blue in the face. I have the ability to ignore you. I have said my peace and don't plan on responding to you anymore.

kemasa
11-30-2009, 11:53 AM
Yes, there is a penal code which can be used for the charge.

Ok, then define what a single sale is. Don't use the Federal law, which does not talk about a single sale. Don't use the BOE, which does not talk about a single sale. You said it was logical to use the Federal law, but it is apples and oranges with respect to a single sale.

His motives are speculation, but it is based on his words. He has admitted to making things up. Who said anything about his wanting all other FFLs shutdown? It seems to me that he just wants some other fool to be the test case.

The DOJ can audit, but there are certain things which are harder to find, such as adding a long gun after the initial sale. When they know the person is doing it, then they will know to look for it. I think that you are trying to say that I have lost the debate, but the judge has yet to rule.

Yeah, I can understand why you would not want to answer that question.

halifax
11-30-2009, 1:29 PM
OK, I'm ready to allow some common sense here. Since it is the person undergoing the background check and cooling off period, NOT the firearm, I'm ready to agree with these DOJ agents that did these seminars. If the buyer has passed the background check then other firearms may be added to the same DROS as long as the original transaction has not concluded.

...
Way back when the state started using the computes for registration/background checks the DOJ had some seminars. We, dealers present, were told that you could ADD long guns to the DROS after the DROS was submitted by crossing out the number of longguns and entering the new number. This could be done as long as the original longgun/s had not been picked up. This time continued to the end of the 30 day period as long as they had NOT been picked up. Back when we had to use the books we could send in an amended form with added longguns as long as the original longgun had not been picked up by the purchaser. So this allowed for adding longguns to the DROS. We were told that since the longgun DROS was a background check the number of longguns didn't really matter as long as they were all picked up at the same time and before the end of the 30 days.

That is the common-ist of common sense.

kemasa
11-30-2009, 2:41 PM
Ahhh, but remember that the law is not written in common sense since then it would be based on the purchaser, not the firearm, as the Federal law is.

12071 ...
(3) No firearm shall be delivered:
(A) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, or, after
notice by the department pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
12076, within 10 days of the submission to the department of any
correction to the application, or within 10 days of the submission to
the department of any fee required pursuant to subdivision (e) of
Section 12076, whichever is later.

There might also be other sections, but I don't see in the CA Penal Code that the point is to do a background check and/or cooling off period, but instead it seems to be based on the firearm.

halifax
11-30-2009, 3:23 PM
Ahhh, but remember that the law is not written in common sense since then it would be based on the purchaser, not the firearm, as the Federal law is.

12071 ...
(3) No firearm shall be delivered:
(A) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, or, after
notice by the department pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
12076, within 10 days of the submission to the department of any
correction to the application, or within 10 days of the submission to
the department of any fee required pursuant to subdivision (e) of
Section 12076, whichever is later.

There might also be other sections, but I don't see in the CA Penal Code that the point is to do a background check and/or cooling off period, but instead it seems to be based on the firearm.

So, you read that as applying to the firearm and not the submission of the DROS? Now I am beginning to understand the length of this thread.

tenpercentfirearms
11-30-2009, 7:04 PM
So, you read that as applying to the firearm and not the submission of the DROS? Now I am beginning to understand the length of this thread.

LOL.

For the record, the only reason I kept on with the "shutdown" comments is because kemasa gets so worked up about it. I enjoy pulling his chain. I think the record is clear on his motivations in calling out for 4473 numbers. Again, that also makes it abundantly clear why so few FFLs want to come into this thread. Back me up and get reported to the DOJ.

I do find it interesting that the few FFLs in this thread have not seemed to take his side. I wonder why that is?

Oh kemasa, you are classic, that is for sure.

Just in case it isn't perfectly clear, if you are unsure about any of this. DO NOT DO IT! I do not want you to get busted thinking this is a clear cut case. You can be written up or charged for anything. I personally will do everything in my power to make sure you are properly defended by myself and the Calguns community (I don't speak solely for the Foundation). I do not want you to be a test case. You have to make that decision. I think the only person here who might think I am trying to trick any of you is kemasa. The only reason he doesn't get it is he doesn't read my posts and just keeps arguing for arguing's sake.

Kemasa this is where you ignore everything I have written and continue to harp about a lack of a definition of a single sale, which we have all concluded doesn't exist and how I am trying to trick everyone into getting busted. :rolleyes:

I think this thread is done.

Mssr. Eleganté
11-30-2009, 9:45 PM
I think this thread is done.


WORD!!!

http://www.yourfunnystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gang-signs.jpg

kemasa
12-01-2009, 2:10 PM
Halifax, I do read that section to apply to the firearm, specifically to the submission of the DROS, and not to the purchaser in terms of a background check for that person. Yes, it is reasons like that that this thread continues on.

Wes, you won't respond to the shutdown comments because there is nothing you can say to defend that and you will be shown for what you really are. I find it funny that you are willing to do this, but in another thread claim that there is an issue with a perfectly legal trade.

Yes, the record is clear on my asking for the 4473 transaction number. I wanted to see if you were foolish enough to post a valid number. You claim to have, but then said that it might have been a lie. You want to falsely claim that there is more reasons for it other than for you to provide the information to the CA DOJ. I could have asked for you to PM me with it, but I don't personally want it.

It is funny since you are the one who keeps harping on the lack of a definition of what a single sale is in the penal code. You are the one who keeps saying that I have the responsibility to provide a definition, but now you are trying to turn it around? How funny.

It is also interesting that you admit to playing games.

TripleT
12-01-2009, 3:23 PM
Wes,

I considered the source long ago and have tried ever so hard to not take the bait. Please let Kemasa have the last word so this thing can die. We all get the point that he can't seem to grasp and until he has the final post, this thing will continue like some bad virus. It was entertaining at first, as are most of Kemasa's post's but this one is just insane.

Can we all agree, no matter what Kemasa drags through the water,,, nobody bite ! I don't want to argue and I certainly don't want to win. I just don't want to have to drive by the same train wreck day, after day, after day. :wacko:

tenpercentfirearms
12-01-2009, 8:35 PM
Wes, you won't respond to the shutdown comments because there is nothing you can say to defend that and you will be shown for what you really are. I find it funny that you are willing to do this, but in another thread claim that there is an issue with a perfectly legal trade.Don't reference claims without citations or simple links.

Yes, the record is clear on my asking for the 4473 transaction number. I wanted to see if you were foolish enough to post a valid number. You claim to have, but then said that it might have been a lie. You want to falsely claim that there is more reasons for it other than for you to provide the information to the CA DOJ. I could have asked for you to PM me with it, but I don't personally want it.LOL. Foolish enough to post a valid number? I told you it was pointless from the get go as I could easily lie about it. You still thought it would mean something. You still have no idea what number I posted. I can't wait for the DOJ to ask about it. End result, you have nothing.

It is funny since you are the one who keeps harping on the lack of a definition of what a single sale is in the penal code. You are the one who keeps saying that I have the responsibility to provide a definition, but now you are trying to turn it around? How funny.Are you really this dense? If you claim I am breaking the law because I am violating the single sale, it is your responsibility to show the definition of single sale that I am violating. When you make the claim, the responsibility of proof is on you.

It is also interesting that you admit to playing games.When you clearly don't understand how academia works, I might as well screw with you. This is not the first time you have made a claim and failed to produce the evidence, but instead expect other people to verify your claims (link) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2694782&postcount=32).

Do you have someone you trust and respect that we can have them explain to you the basic premise of making a claim and backing it up with logic, reasoning, and evidence. You seem to have missed that part of school and you clearly aren't learning it here.

You claimed I am breaking the law. You claim I am violating the single sale as it is defined by the dictionary. Guess what? Check out this link! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/single+sale?fromAsk=true&o=100074

Again, if you were a prosecutor, you would be laughed out of the court. Probably like you are being laughed out of this thread.

kemasa
12-02-2009, 10:15 AM
Hey, Wes, are you the CalGuns police now? I can make statements which are true and I don't need to provide a link. It is true. If you want to post a link, do it. I know you love to tell others what they have to do, but you refuse to do the same thing that you expect of others. I am sure that others can find it, if they are interested. It is amusing that Wes wants to be careful in one case, yet questionable, at best, in another. I guess it all depends on which game he is playing.

Perhaps your fellow gang members want to support you, for now, but only time will tell. Perhaps they will view you differently when they see your other claims with the transfer. Under that, a person can not give a gift of a firearm as they would not the be actual buyer, nor can they trade firearms, as in the specific reference. They would have to answer no to 4473 11.a. What a joke!!!

Wes clearly does not understand what a dictionary is and how to use it. A dictionary defines words, such as "single" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/single?o=100074 and "sale" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sale?o=100074. Why does Wes try to use the fact that he can not find "single sale" on dictionary.com as evidence for something? This shows his skills are questionable, at best.

So, Wes, why don't you get a known attorney who specializes in firearm laws to back your statements with regard to what a single sale is and your reading of the penal code, especially with your claim that a handgun is not a firearm transaction.

tenpercentfirearms
12-02-2009, 10:06 PM
Hey, Wes, are you the CalGuns police now? I can make statements which are true and I don't need to provide a link. It is true. If you want to post a link, do it. I know you love to tell others what they have to do, but you refuse to do the same thing that you expect of others. I am sure that others can find it, if they are interested. It is amusing that Wes wants to be careful in one case, yet questionable, at best, in another. I guess it all depends on which game he is playing.You are correct. And that is why no one except me listens to you anymore. You have destroyed your credibility. You are known as the FFL who likes to make things up without references to support his claims. And you are correct, that is your choice.

Perhaps your fellow gang members want to support you, for now, but only time will tell. Perhaps they will view you differently when they see your other claims with the transfer. Under that, a person can not give a gift of a firearm as they would not the be actual buyer, nor can they trade firearms, as in the specific reference. They would have to answer no to 4473 11.a. What a joke!!!More baseless falsehoods and exaggerations. Here is a link (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=245602) if you want to go see where kemasa is operating under his usual pattern of going off on tangents and completely making up definitions as he goes. I definitely see a pattern.

Hey, Wes, are you the CalGuns police now? I can make statements which are true and I don't need to provide a link. It is true. If you want to post a link, do it. I know you love to tell others what they have to do, but you refuse to do the same thing that you expect of others. I am sure that others can find it, if they are interested. It is amusing that Wes wants to be careful in one case, yet questionable, at best, in another. I guess it all depends on which game he is playing.You are correct. And that is why no one except me listens to you anymore. You have destroyed your credibility. You are known as the FFL who likes to make things up without references to support his claims. And you are correct, that is your choice.

Wes clearly does not understand what a dictionary is and how to use it. A dictionary defines words, such as "single" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/single?o=100074 and "sale" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sale?o=100074. Why does Wes try to use the fact that he can not find "single sale" on dictionary.com as evidence for something? This shows his skills are questionable, at best.Woah! You got me there kemasa. Brilliant reasoning skills. So based on your links a single sale means "pertaining to the unmarried state" "an auction". Sure genius! LOL. You see, I am proud of you for finally using links, but what you might want to do is clearly outline which definitions you are using from those links. You see I understand that a dictionary doesn't just have a "single" definition of "single". So unless you specify if you are using it in its adjective, verb, or noun form let alone which one of those many definitions for each, you really aren't making a solid case.

Keep working on it, you are getting closer and I am proud of you for making some progress.

So, Wes, why don't you get a known attorney who specializes in firearm laws to back your statements with regard to what a single sale is and your reading of the penal code, especially with your claim that a handgun is not a firearm transaction.
It is like you read my mind! Well with the exception of the handgun is not a firearm transaction. That is irrelevant to adding long guns to DROS. Just in case you think I am admitting that a handgun for the purposes of Section 12077(d) is a transaction, we all know it isn't. I will quote it again for you. (4) One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns.I don't make this garbage up, I just read it.

That is all for now. I will get back to you with an attorney's opinion. Until then, you can go ahead and post the last word. We know you can't help it.

kemasa
12-03-2009, 9:11 AM
Hey, Wes, at least I can read the instructions for a 4473. I also know that a third person can pay for a firearm and that does not automatically make it a straw purchase.

It also seems that you like to double up on your response :-).

So, in addition to being the CalGuns police, you also are able to speak for everyone else on this forum.

Gotta love your comments regarding the dictionary. Clearly, you need a bit of educating. First you claim that "single sale" is not in the dictionary, then you pull out one definition of the word "single", but then you fall back on your CalGuns police role and claim that I have the responsibility to spoon feed you with the use of a dictionary.

Yeah, you read things, just incorrectly.

tenpercentfirearms
12-03-2009, 7:14 PM
Hey, Wes, at least I can read the instructions for a 4473. I also know that a third person can pay for a firearm and that does not automatically make it a straw purchase.

Care to explain how a third person could pay for a firearm and it doesn't make it a straw purchase? The other thread dealt with only two people. Plus you sure didn't read the 4473 clearly when you stated that (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3435075&postcount=10) There are a couple of issues with a strawman purchase. The first is that the person who the firearm is really for is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The second is to bypass the 1 gun per 30 days or the such things.I read the 4473 and no where did it state either of those two things.

Don't try to act all high and mighty when my original questioning is what led you to read the 4473 and see that it does specify that you can still answer yes if you are "therwise acquiring the firearm for yourself". I agree with you on that point, but you clearly didn't have that conclusion when you started the thread. Only through our clearly stating our positions and doing research did we both come to that conclusion. We are both better for it and don't need the personal attacks. And it certainly doesn't change anything over in this thread, nor is it even relevant. Or should we bring up your misquotes of penal code in the past? I don't think we need to. Your position in the other thread is correct irregardless of other positions you have taken.

kemasa
12-04-2009, 11:03 AM
A father comes in and buys both of his sons a rifle.

A group donates money to purchase a rifle and give it as a gift to a member of the group.

Shall I give you more examples?

Yes, I read the 4473 and gave some examples of issues which make it a straw purchase.

Who pays is just a warning sign, but does not indicate that it is a straw purchase. As stated in the other thread, it depends on who is really acquiring the firearm and why. A person can purchase a firearm for a gift for another and that is not a straw purchase, even though in the long term they are actually acquiring the firearm for another. That is a rare example and with limited exceptions does not really apply in CA since the other person will have to submit a DROS to do the transfer.

Sorry, Wes, your original questioning did not lead me to read the 4473. Most likely I read the instructions long before you were ever a FFL, but in any case long before I ever posted on this forum or even knew about this forum. Yeah, I think that your ego is getting the best of you. Clearly, you still do not understand what is and what is not a straw purchase due to your first question.

My misquotes? I did accidentally have the wrong section number, but the quote of the code section was correct.

"WE" don't need the personal attacks? Look at your response when you admitted you were wrong. Look at some of the other comments in that response.

tenpercentfirearms
12-04-2009, 3:59 PM
A father comes in and buys both of his sons a rifle.

A group donates money to purchase a rifle and give it as a gift to a member of the group.

Shall I give you more examples?

Yes, I read the 4473 and gave some examples of issues which make it a straw purchase.

Who pays is just a warning sign, but does not indicate that it is a straw purchase. As stated in the other thread, it depends on who is really acquiring the firearm and why. A person can purchase a firearm for a gift for another and that is not a straw purchase, even though in the long term they are actually acquiring the firearm for another. That is a rare example and with limited exceptions does not really apply in CA since the other person will have to submit a DROS to do the transfer.

Sorry, Wes, your original questioning did not lead me to read the 4473. Most likely I read the instructions long before you were ever a FFL, but in any case long before I ever posted on this forum or even knew about this forum. Yeah, I think that your ego is getting the best of you. Clearly, you still do not understand what is and what is not a straw purchase due to your first question.

My misquotes? I did accidentally have the wrong section number, but the quote of the code section was correct.

"WE" don't need the personal attacks? Look at your response when you admitted you were wrong. Look at some of the other comments in that response.
You still didn't explain a third person. A second person yes. A third person no. So how does a third person "not a straw purchase" work? Clearly I understand a straw sale as I questioned you on your original verbiage that dealt with prohibited persons, which specifically has nothing to do with a straw sale. Only whether you are the person acquiring the firearm is what matters.

I am glad we are educating each other.

kemasa
12-05-2009, 6:57 AM
"A group donates money to purchase a rifle and give it as a gift to a member of the group." The person shipping me the rifle did not provide the money for the rifle and the person picking it up did not provide any money for the rifle.

There are plenty of third "persons" involved. In any case, your question shows that you don't understand that who is paying does not matter at all except as a warning sign. You seem to have backed off from your previous statements, a bit, which shows progress.

My comments dealt with who is actually acquiring the firearm, but clearly you want to attack any comments I make.

yzernie
12-05-2009, 6:34 PM
A father comes in and buys both of his sons a rifle.

Have to agree with kemasa on this one. The father can pay for the rifle(s) but the DROS has to be completed by the son(s) and the rifle DROS'd in the son(s) name. Who pays for it isn't important but who DROS's the gun is.

CHS
12-05-2009, 7:30 PM
Have to agree with kemasa on this one. The father can pay for the rifle(s) but the DROS has to be completed by the son(s) and the rifle DROS'd in the son(s) name. Who pays for it isn't important but who DROS's the gun is.

Actually, in CA that's not true.

A Dad can come in and pay for AND DROS a rifle that's a gift for his son, as long as they both live in CA.

Perfectly legal.

kemasa
12-06-2009, 7:58 AM
The question was whether it was a straw purchase, not all the possible legal ways that it can be done.

Yes, a father CAN come in and pay for a rifle and DROS it, then give it as a gift to his son, but it is perfectly legal and proper to have the father come in and pay and have the son submit the DROS. Change it to a handgun, if you prefer. Yes, the form can be filled out, but that would cost more money in the end.

tenpercentfirearms
12-07-2009, 5:34 AM
There are plenty of third "persons" involved. In any case, your question shows that you don't understand that who is paying does not matter at all except as a warning sign. You seem to have backed off from your previous statements, a bit, which shows progress.

My comments dealt with who is actually acquiring the firearm, but clearly you want to attack any comments I make.Don't make assumptions kemasa. I was nit picking at you because you said a "third person". I am still not sure if the people paying for a gift are third person or not. As if I put money in a pool to go to someone else, it has only passed through two people. Me to the gun buyer. So you still haven't sufficiently answered for third person.

Instead of recognizing that I was nit picking at you, you make assumptions that I don't understand what is going on. My question shows I know what is going on. Again, you keep making it personal. I just asked what a third person transaction was. You don't have to take it as an attack, just answer the question, which you still haven't. At this point your easiest answer would simply be, "I meant second person". Instead you make assumptions about me that are completely off base because you want to be right and you want to seem smarter than me. And that isn't an attack, it is what it is.

Just remember, your very first statement about a straw purchase that started this. You said nothing about what we are discussing now. So I am still not sure why you seem to think I don't get it and you got it all. After I stated your concept of a straw purchase was way off (which it was, it has nothing to do with if one of the parties is a prohibited person or not), you then went back and read it and figured out that as long as the person was legally acquiring it, we are good to go. A point I missed, just like the point you missed that prohibited has nothing to do with it.

We both get it now. Clearly both of our understandings are better about how to explain a straw purchase than when the other thread began. Neither of us needs to be smarter than the other on that issue and it really has nothing to do with this thread here.

TripleT
12-07-2009, 6:46 AM
Something to keep in mind as you arrive at agreement on some of these issues is the CA DOJ person or ATF person is no smarter or in possession of a better crystal ball as to what the intention of some of these convoluted laws are or was. In that respect, I personally would not expect either agency to arrive at the same conclusions during an audit (or maybe a sting). Some of these gray areas are legally defensible, given enough money, in the mean time, prudence may be as important as understanding the law. IMHO

kemasa
12-07-2009, 1:07 PM
Wes, as you say, don't make assumptions. In the case of the pool, the money was not given to the person getting the firearm, but to another person, who collected the money and who might have then given it to another person to actually purchase the firearm.

You are nit picking because you want to try to find an issue that you can hang your hat on. As I said, the money is just a warning sign and is not an issue. I could give you a case where the money passes from person to person, over and over again, until it gets to the final person. It is still not an issue. I have given an example of a third person, but it seems that is not good enough for you.

I am assuming that you don't understand because of what you are saying. You are clearly playing games.

Often a straw purchase is to allow a person, who is prohibited from directly buying a firearm, to get a firearm. It also can be to bypass the one gun per thirty days. It is anything to get around that person actually filling out the paperwork. It can be that a person does not want a record of the purchase and that they are legally allowed to purchase a firearm. There are many reasons, but the main thing is that the person doing the paperwork is not the person who is really acquiring it.

Sorry, but my understanding has not changed at all. It has nothing to do with being smarter either. That is just the ego issue.

ke6guj
12-07-2009, 1:08 PM
are you guys still arguing over this?

halifax
12-07-2009, 1:22 PM
I think the arguing now revolves around who will have the last word :D

TripleT
12-07-2009, 1:23 PM
are you guys still arguing over this?

As the FFL Turns... It's our very own soap opera. Stay tuned for scenes from tomorrow's episode.

kemasa
12-07-2009, 1:25 PM
There are some at the CA DOJ and BATF that I trust more than others to have the correct answer. I had to educate the BATF inspector when she claimed that I had to ship all the 4473s prior to my move into the BATF out of business records department. She would not listen until I gave her the name and number of the person in the records department.

TripleT
12-07-2009, 1:29 PM
There are some at the CA DOJ and BATF that I trust more than others to have the correct answer. I had to educate the BATF inspector when she claimed that I had to ship all the 4473s prior to my move in. She would not listen until I gave her the name and number of the person in the records department.

I don't follow. "Ship all the 4473's prior to my move in." What was she trying to make you do ?

kemasa
12-07-2009, 1:30 PM
Wes claims to be going to have a known firearm attorney give an opinion on this, but I would not count on it.

kemasa
12-07-2009, 1:53 PM
I moved locations and the BATF issued a new FFL with a different number. She claimed that since a different number was issued, that I had to send all the 4473s to the out of business records department. I told her that I did not go out of business, I just moved, therefore I did not need to send in all the 4473s. She would not listen nor would she check on it, so I did and once I gave her the contact name and number, she backed down.

I guess I could have worded it better :-).

TripleT
12-07-2009, 2:16 PM
I moved locations and the BATF issued a new FFL with a different number. She claimed that since a different number was issued, that I had to send all the 4473s to the out of business records department. I told her that I did not go out of business, I just moved, therefore I did not need to send in all the 4473s. She would not listen nor would she check on it, so I did and once I gave her the contact name and number, she backed down.

I guess I could have worded it better :-).

Ok, Now I get it.

Heck, I might of just sent 'em. From what I've been told, they get deep sixed in some warehouse and only get looked at when a firearm is used in a crime. The next audit would have been pretty interesting. Tell 'em go to your warehouse to complete the audit... ;-)

kemasa
12-07-2009, 2:23 PM
Yeah, well, first off I did not want to send them and have them claimed that I was now out of business and cancel my current FFL. The second thing is that I am lazy and cheap and did not want to take all the time and effort to box up all the forms and ship them off, perhaps have to deal with the forms getting lost and/or explain why I no longer have the forms. I would have wanted to scan a copy of each form (see lazy) as well.

I received a phone call from the BATF, quite some time ago, tracing a firearm. There was a couple of problems though. First, I had not dealt with the company that they said had shipped me the firearm. The next thing was that I never received a firearm with that serial number. I called back to told the person this. A day later I got a call from the same person asking if I had gone through my records yet.

I heard that there is a Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

I prefer to avoid such interesting things :-).

tenpercentfirearms
12-08-2009, 9:37 PM
Wes, as you say, don't make assumptions. In the case of the pool, the money was not given to the person getting the firearm, but to another person, who collected the money and who might have then given it to another person to actually purchase the firearm.You crack me up. I didn't make assumptions. I asked for clarification because you did not make it clear. Again, something you are really good at. Now it is clear. An example of a third party transaction. Thank you.

You are nit picking because you want to try to find an issue that you can hang your hat on. As I said, the money is just a warning sign and is not an issue. I could give you a case where the money passes from person to person, over and over again, until it gets to the final person. It is still not an issue. I have given an example of a third person, but it seems that is not good enough for you.How can it not be good enough for me when you just now finally gave an example of a third person transaction. You never gave one before. At least not a clear one. I guess your statements seem very clear to you. They are not very clear to us.

I am assuming that you don't understand because of what you are saying. You are clearly playing games.Didn't you just say don't make assumptions? Hypocrite.

Often a straw purchase is to allow a person, who is prohibited from directly buying a firearm, to get a firearm. It also can be to bypass the one gun per thirty days. It is anything to get around that person actually filling out the paperwork. It can be that a person does not want a record of the purchase and that they are legally allowed to purchase a firearm. There are many reasons, but the main thing is that the person doing the paperwork is not the person who is really acquiring it.No the only thing is the person who is purchasing is not really acquiring it. It has nothing to do with 30 days, nor prohibited persons.

Sorry, but my understanding has not changed at all. It has nothing to do with being smarter either. That is just the ego issue.Clearly it is an ego issue. You were corrected and don't want to admit to it. No problem. I missed something you caught. I have no problems with that.

Wes claims to be going to have a known firearm attorney give an opinion on this, but I would not count on it.Why not? Either the attorney will say it is good or he will say it isn't. I don't know why you should doubt it. I have followed through on everything else I have said I was going to do. Including getting a DOJ agent to tell me by phone he agrees you can add long guns onto a handgun 4473 and DROS. Of course, we don't want to talk about that though do we?

kemasa
12-09-2009, 9:13 AM
You did make an assumption when you made statements about how the group buy occurred. Just admit you made a mistake there.

It is nitpicking and pointless because who pays really does not matter, except as a warning sign. You demand an example of something that just does not matter.

As to assuming, I am giving my opinion. If you want to see a hypocrite, I suggest that you just look into the mirror.

Wes, get a clue. Why do you think that a prohibited person or someone trying to get around the one gun per thirty days has nothing to do with a straw purchase? It can be the reason for the straw purchase. Since it can be the reason, it is part of it.

If two people walk and and one person is interested in two firearms. The other person shows little interest. The first person says he wants to buy both of the firearms, but is told that he is limited to one per month, so he just purchases one of them. The second person then says that he wants to purchase the other one. Each person pulls out a credit card and pays for their own purchase. Is there any problem with either of these transactions?

Wes, you are wrong, you did not correct me with regards to straw purchases. In your messages you claim that I went and looked up something because of you and learned something because of you, that is just plain false. That and other statements show that you have an ego problem with my being correct and your learning something from me.

Sorry Wes, but you have not followed through on everything you said you would do and/or have not been honest about it. Get an official letter from the DOJ about adding long guns, rather than your claim that some DOJ person said something. You have admitted you have made things up.

tenpercentfirearms
12-09-2009, 8:05 PM
Sorry Wes, but you have not followed through on everything you said you would do and/or have not been honest about it. Get an official letter from the DOJ about adding long guns, rather than your claim that some DOJ person said something. You have admitted you have made things up.

I never said I would get a letter from the DOJ. Why don't you get a letter from the DOJ saying we can't do it?

Way to add being honest about it in there. Classic case of you expanding onto the issues at hand and ignoring the original case.

So why you are at it, where did I admit to making things up? Or are you making things up?

kemasa
12-10-2009, 8:26 AM
Wes, go read your posts. I have proven you wrong in the past about what you claimed to have not said, but actually said. So, no, I am not the one who makes things up.

Where did I say that you said you would get a letter from the DOJ? That is an example of your reading and understanding skills. That was in response to "Including getting a DOJ agent to tell me by phone he agrees you can add long guns onto a handgun 4473 and DROS." To be quite blunt, I would not believe what you said if your tongue came notarized. Such a claim by you could not be proven unless the phone call was recorded AND it can be proven that the person you were talking to actually worked for the CA DOJ Firearms division and was a person who normally answered questions on the phone.

So, Wes, you are wrong. I was just responding to statements that you made.

tenpercentfirearms
12-11-2009, 5:58 AM
Wes, go read your posts. I have proven you wrong in the past about what you claimed to have not said, but actually said. So, no, I am not the one who makes things up.I just read them all and you never did that once. You are lying again. I know you kind of think that citing sources is a waste of time, but time and time again I prove you inadequate for this level of the ball game because you won't back up your claims. Now you look like a fool because I just proved you wrong.

Where did I say that you said you would get a letter from the DOJ? That is an example of your reading and understanding skills. That was in response to "Including getting a DOJ agent to tell me by phone he agrees you can add long guns onto a handgun 4473 and DROS." To be quite blunt, I would not believe what you said if your tongue came notarized. Such a claim by you could not be proven unless the phone call was recorded AND it can be proven that the person you were talking to actually worked for the CA DOJ Firearms division and was a person who normally answered questions on the phone.An example of my reading and understanding skills? This has nothing to do with my reading and understanding skills and everything to do with your writing skills. Again, usually people use references to what the cite or quote. You don't, which makes your writing hard to understand. For example, people usually use paragraphs as a means to separating thoughts and showing they are moving onto the next one. Your paragraph we are referencing to did not. You stated in one sentence Sorry Wes, but you have not followed through on everything you said you would do and/or have not been honest about it. Get an official letter from the DOJ about adding long guns, rather than your claim that some DOJ person said something. You have admitted you have made things up.Had you been more clear that you were not referencing the letter comment to the not being honest instead of the not followed through, maybe I would have gotten in. However, as is the case with this entire thread, you do not have clear and well thought out reasoning and you do not display clear writing skills (hence the numerous errors in citing penal code, grammatical blunders, and going off on tangents like this one).

So, Wes, you are wrong. I was just responding to statements that you made.I have never admitted to making things up, that is just your assumption. I clearly stated that your fools errand of me posting 4473 numbers was absurd. I stated for the record before I even posted the numbers that it would prove nothing because either the penal code says what it says or it doesn't. I stated that I could simply make up some numbers and nothing would be changed. I correctly predicted that by my posting a 4473 number, nothing would change.

Not only was I correct, but you didn't even believe the number I posted was valid. So what was the point in you asking? To take away from the real issue at hand. What does the penal code say?

I quote penal code and you quote the dictionary.

jmlivingston
12-11-2009, 6:22 AM
This thread's done.