PDA

View Full Version : DROS and PPT within 30-days?


Purple K
11-30-2009, 11:33 PM
Hi,
Just wanted to know if I can purchase a new pistol and do a PPT on another pistol all within 30-days? Thanks in advance.

Cokebottle
11-30-2009, 11:37 PM
Hi,
Just wanted to know if I can purchase a new pistol and do a PPT on another pistol all within 30-days? Thanks in advance.
No.
Only an intra-familial transfer or C&R is exempt from the 30 day rule.

However, if you are married, your wife could run her own DROS, so you could theoretically run 24/household/year.

lorax3
11-30-2009, 11:43 PM
Hi,
Just wanted to know if I can purchase a new pistol and do a PPT on another pistol all within 30-days?

No.
Only an intra-familial transfer or C&R is exempt from the 30 day rule.


The correct answer is yes you can.

PPT's are exempt from the 1-30 day rule. People who have an FFL03 and a COE are also 1 in 30 exempt.

12072(a)(9)(A) No person shall make an application to purchase more than one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person within any 30-day period.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any of the following:

(viii) Any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Section 12082.

(ix) Any person who is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12071.

viiii is the PPT exemption and ix is the C&R + COE exemption.

Purple K
11-30-2009, 11:44 PM
Thanks for the info. I found someone that has a pistol that's not on the "safe" handgun list. I don't currently own the particular pistol that he wants to trade for. I'm willing to buy the pistol that he wants and then trade him straight across. Would it be considered a straw purchase if we both used the same FFL, We DROS the new pistol to him, I pay for it, he PPT's his pistol to me. Since neither one of us are prohibited persons it shouldn't be considered a straw purchase???

lorax3
11-30-2009, 11:51 PM
You are better off just trading his pistol for your cash. Then he can buy his new pistol with his new wad of cash.

Walk into the FFL, he sells you the pistol for X dollars. They PPT the pistol to you. Than Mr. Seller buys the gun he wants with his newly received stack of benjamins.

Cokebottle
12-01-2009, 1:34 AM
Thanks for the info. I found someone that has a pistol that's not on the "safe" handgun list. I don't currently own the particular pistol that he wants to trade for. I'm willing to buy the pistol that he wants and then trade him straight across. Would it be considered a straw purchase if we both used the same FFL, We DROS the new pistol to him, I pay for it, he PPT's his pistol to me. Since neither one of us are prohibited persons it shouldn't be considered a straw purchase???
I'm with Lorax.
If he's got an issue with $$$ running through his bank account, then deal with dead presidents instead of a check.
"Strawman" is only an issue if it is used to bypass a law, such as having a LEO purchase an off-roster handgun for you, or to bypass the one-every-30 law.

The problem with you buying it and then transferring it to him is it'll cost an extra $35 for the 2nd PPT, and there will still be the two 10-day waiting periods. He's probably not going to want to DROS his old gun to you until you are able to DROS your new one to him... so it's going to be:
You make the purchase, wait 10 days, then both of you go back to the shop, get your "new" one out of "jail", you do the PPT and pay the FFL $70, then BOTH guns go to "jail" for another 10 days.

A second problem is if sometime during this 10 days, he backs out of the deal (remember, he still has his gun, you just bought the "trade"), you get stuck with a new gun that "he" wants.


There's nothing illegal about both of you walking into the store together and you handing over the cash for him to buy the gun he wants. Now he's only paying the $25 DROS for the new gun out of dealer stock, then as soon as that DROS is complete, he pulls out his old gun and does a PPT to you. $35 there and you're set.... but as Lorax said, just buy his gun for whatever the sale price of the new gun plus tax is.
Let him pay the $25 DROS, since he'd have has to pay $35 for a PPT... you saved him $10.

In 10 days, you both go back in and get your guns out of "jail", but both of you only have to be present for the PPT... when you go back to pick them up, you don't have to be together.

If you DROS the new one to yourself, then you're paying the initial $25, plus another $35 for the PPT in 10 days. Just handing him the cash, you save $25 and he saves $10.

The only reason this wouldn't work would be if he is still within his 30 days from a previous purchase... and if that's the case, then you buying a new gun with the intent to PPT it to him would indeed be "strawman".... but doing it that way, it's going to be 20 days before he could take it out of "jail" anyways, so as long as he's already 10 or more days into his 30, that would work (legally).

Keep in mind that the 1-every-30 doesn't prevent you (or him) from initiating a DROS. You can walk into the dealer and buy 5 handguns on the same invoice... you simply have to wait 10 days to get the first one out of "jail", and the remaining 4 stay in until 30 more days has elapsed, at which point you can go back and collect one more each month.

Seems you're making it more complex than it needs to be... just have the purchase of the new gun put into his name right from the git-go.

tenpercentfirearms
12-01-2009, 5:37 AM
There's nothing illegal about both of you walking into the store together and you handing over the cash for him to buy the gun he wants. Now he's only paying the $25 DROS for the new gun out of dealer stock, then as soon as that DROS is complete, he pulls out his old gun and does a PPT to you. $35 there and you're set.... but as Lorax said, just buy his gun for whatever the sale price of the new gun plus tax is.
Let him pay the $25 DROS, since he'd have has to pay $35 for a PPT... you saved him $10.

I would not recommend this at all. Cokebottle already got the initial question wrong and this will very likely lead an FFL to consider this a straw purchase. Now, common sense would dictate that if you are starting a DROS and he is starting a DROS, then someone is not trying to make a straw purchase. However, the straw purchase rules aren't set up that way and if I as an FFL believes you are not the real buyer, then I am not supposed to sell. Seeing him hand you cash would make me wonder. Even though common sense tells me he just sold you that gun and now he is using that money to buy a new one.

Now if you are outside the store where I can't see you, you hand him the cash, and then you both walk in, you doing a PPT on a pistol with him and him turning around and buying a pistol from me, perfect. The less an FFL dealer knows or sees the better for everyone. We have to be very careful about not breaking some rather ambiguous rules and people we don't know coming into our store and doing things like that are not worth the guns we are selling.

Purple K
12-01-2009, 8:51 AM
Gentlemen.... Thank You very much! New plan: I find a local dealer that has the pistol the trader wants. Trader and I meet at that FFL with the pistol he's trading me. We initiate the PPT and I pay the trader. The trader takes said money and initiates purchase of pistol he wants. Simpler, less gun jail time and fewer fees.???

Cokebottle
12-01-2009, 9:37 AM
Gentlemen.... Thank You very much! New plan: I find a local dealer that has the pistol the trader wants. Trader and I meet at that FFL with the pistol he's trading me. We initiate the PPT and I pay the trader. The trader takes said money and initiates purchase of pistol he wants. Simpler, less gun jail time and fewer fees.???
Less jail time and fewer fees, but like Wes said, it would be better if the FFL doesn't see the cash transaction take place. Hand him the cash in the parking lot out of view of the counter.
Make sure the other guy is aware of the $25 DROS fee unless you plan to cover all of the fees for both transactions.
Don't forget to factor in tax for the new gun.
Also, while the new gun should come with a lock, the FFL will need to make you purchase a trigger lock if the PPT doesn't come into the store with one.

You must be getting something pretty special if you're trading for a newly-purchased gun.

kemasa
12-01-2009, 1:56 PM
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.

In this case, there is not a problem since both parties are having a background check done and it is clearly a trade. The PPT to one person and the firearm to the other shows that. I am not sure why someone would think that there is a problem with it.

You can order the firearm and have it delivered to the FFL or find a place that has one in stock. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person coming in to do a PPT and getting the money for that firearm and then turning around and buying another firearm.

Personally, I would have more of an issue if I saw the money changing hands outside than right in front of me in this case. It is expected that a seller would get paid for a firearm during a PPT.

tenpercentfirearms
12-01-2009, 9:08 PM
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.

That is not what the Feds state. From the 4473Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

Important Notices

1. For purposes of this form, you are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (for example, redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner) . You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party.ACTUAL BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT the actual buyer of the firearm and must answer "no" to question 11a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual buyer of the firearm and should answer "yes" to question 11a. Please note, if you are picking up a repaired firearm for another person, you should answer "n/a" to question 11.a..
So no where does it state that one of the people have to be a prohibited person. No where does it say anything about one gun every 30 days and as an FFL dealer you would think would know the difference between State laws prohibiting more than one dealer sale of a handgun per month and federal prohibitions on "straw sales". Clearly the feds could care less how many handguns you sell in a month (as long as you fill out the multiple handgun sales form) and clearly DROS would deny you for that, not the 4473. :rolleyes:

In this case, there is not a problem since both parties are having a background check done and it is clearly a trade. The PPT to one person and the firearm to the other shows that. I am not sure why someone would think that there is a problem with it.Unless you clearly tell the employees that, it might not be clear. They see you handing another guy money and that same guy tries to buy a gun with it. If you don't explain what you are doing, you might find out real quick a dealer is going to flat out refuse to do the transaction. If he buys his gun first and you claim you are going to do a PPT, the dealer might not care and it might be too late.

Logically it makes sense what you are doing. However, dealers don't always use logic and err on the side of caution. It is much easier to tell you no than have to deal with an BATFE sting.

Personally, I would have more of an issue if I saw the money changing hands outside than right in front of me in this case. It is expected that a seller would get paid for a firearm during a PPT.Why would you have an issue with it? It is legal after all right? You prove my point exactly. You never know who you are dealing with at a gun shop. There are so many ways for us to interpret the law, if you are doing this type of transaction, the less a dealer knows, the smoother it will go.

As is clear by kemasa's definition of a straw purchase, this is not a clear cut case. His definition has nothing to do with the actual federal definition that is on the 4473. You would think he would know better, but honestly he is just like me, we don't read the thing very often, we have you fill it out and know what is and isn't supposed to be blank. I too used to just use common sense on straw sales but if you read the actual 4473, it doesn't matter if the person is prohibited or not. Are you the actual buyer. Plain and simple. I will quote the OP.

Thanks for the info. I found someone that has a pistol that's not on the "safe" handgun list. I don't currently own the particular pistol that he wants to trade for. I'm willing to buy the pistol that he wants and then trade him straight across. Would it be considered a straw purchase if we both used the same FFL, We DROS the new pistol to him, I pay for it, he PPT's his pistol to me. Since neither one of us are prohibited persons it shouldn't be considered a straw purchase???Under this exact scenario, the other buyer should answer no to 11.a. and this is a prohibited transaction.

Some of this is splitting hairs, but welcome to the FFL business. If the participating dealer doesn't know you, expect him to treat the entire situation as suspicious and be ready for a hassle. Reduce your hassle. Have the money in the other buyer's hand before you ever enter the store and have him pay for it straight out of his pocket with no mention of you. The fact that you are also doing a PPT at the same time should alleviate any suspicion by the dealer, but as you can see by the 4473 language, whether you are prohibited or not has nothing to do with question 11.a.

kemasa
12-02-2009, 9:59 AM
Wes, do you really care about doing the right thing or are more interested in trying to attack me? You say here that you don't want to do questionable things, but elsewhere you support and promote doing just that. Seems like a conflict.

As to the one gun per 30 days, clearly you don't understand simple concepts. If a person wants to buy two firearms, but can not because of the state law preventing it, they might have a friend buy one and they buy the other one. This would be a strawman purchase since the the friend is buying the firearm for another. That would be in violation of Federal law.

As I said, it is expected that if someone comes in to do a PPT, that the person getting the firearm is buying the firearm. Since they are buying the firearm, it is expected that they pay for it. There is also nothing wrong with a person giving a firearm as a gift.

If you see someone trying to hide what they are doing, such as transfering money in the parking lot, that raises questions because of their actions. Why would they need to hide the transfer of the money if it is a PPT?

Wes is completely wrong with respect to claiming that the buyer should answer no to 11.a and it is not a prohibited transaction. The buyer is paying for the firearm with the other firearm. That clearly makes the person the transferee AND the buyer. Under Wes' reading, all trades would be illegal since the person would not be the "buyer".

Purple K
12-02-2009, 11:25 AM
Too much splitting of hairs. Every other time that I've done a PPT I've paid the seller in the presence of the FFL, after all, PPT is a "Private Party Sale." Exchanging money in the parking lot looks a lot more shady and may get the attention of LEO's. If the other party immediately uses that money to purchase a pistol no law is broken.

tenpercentfirearms
12-02-2009, 9:54 PM
Wes, do you really care about doing the right thing or are more interested in trying to attack me? You say here that you don't want to do questionable things, but elsewhere you support and promote doing just that. Seems like a conflict.Stick to the subject. Clearly what I am advocating in other threads is legal to everyone except you. Clearly what I am urging here is caution. It would seem you are being conflicted as you are ultra conservative there, but don't seem to know the definition of a straw purchase here. Of course this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and I suggest we drop it as pointless. Stick to the subject.
As to the one gun per 30 days, clearly you don't understand simple concepts. If a person wants to buy two firearms, but can not because of the state law preventing it, they might have a friend buy one and they buy the other one. This would be a strawman purchase since the the friend is buying the firearm for another. That would be in violation of Federal law.What? Sorry, you just lost me here. I have absolutely no clue how this is relevant to anything being discussed here. Stick to the subject.

As I said, it is expected that if someone comes in to do a PPT, that the person getting the firearm is buying the firearm. Since they are buying the firearm, it is expected that they pay for it. There is also nothing wrong with a person giving a firearm as a gift.Quite true. If I see the buyer hand the seller money and then the seller buys something from me, that makes sense. According to the OP, this would not have been the case. I guess you missed it when he said it and also when I quoted him. Might the third time be the charm?

Thanks for the info. I found someone that has a pistol that's not on the "safe" handgun list. I don't currently own the particular pistol that he wants to trade for. I'm willing to buy the pistol that he wants and then trade him straight across. Would it be considered a straw purchase if we both used the same FFL, We DROS the new pistol to him, I pay for it, he PPT's his pistol to me. Since neither one of us are prohibited persons it shouldn't be considered a straw purchase???

Also note from my posting of the text from the 4473You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party. [example edited for irrelevance, continuing on] However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual buyer of the firearm and should answer "yes" to question 11a.Again, in this example, our OP would be the person buying the gift in his name with his money even though he fully intends after completing the purchase to give lawfully give the firearm to the gift receiver.

The entire gift thing is irrelevant here as no gifts are being bought. A man is paying for another man's gun. That is a straw purchase.

If you see someone trying to hide what they are doing, such as transfering money in the parking lot, that raises questions because of their actions. Why would they need to hide the transfer of the money if it is a PPT?This is a good point. Be sure not to trade money in the parking lot, but some where else. You would think if you saw two guys transferring money in the parking lot and one guy comes into do a PPT and the other guy buys a new gun with cash, you would simply ask them if they sold the gun in the parking lot. For some reason them doing it in the store makes you feel better than if they do it in the parking lot. Not really rational, but that is your choice.

Wes is completely wrong with respect to claiming that the buyer should answer no to 11.a and it is not a prohibited transaction. The buyer is paying for the firearm with the other firearm. That clearly makes the person the transferee AND the buyer. Under Wes' reading, all trades would be illegal since the person would not be the "buyer".Again, you take me out of context and completely make up statements I did not make. For the fourth time, I quote the OP.Thanks for the info. I found someone that has a pistol that's not on the "safe" handgun list. I don't currently own the particular pistol that he wants to trade for. I'm willing to buy the pistol that he wants and then trade him straight across. Would it be considered a straw purchase if we both used the same FFL, We DROS the new pistol to him, I pay for it, he PPT's his pistol to me. Since neither one of us are prohibited persons it shouldn't be considered a straw purchase???If the buyer gives the money to the seller and then the seller buys the gun, then your example is correct. However, the OP stated he would be purchasing the firearm. If the OP is giving me the money for the seller's transaction, that is plain and simply a straw purchase.

The point of this hair splitting is you as consumers need to be fully aware of the difficult position that dealers are in. If a dealer suspects a straw purchase, they should deny it and refuse to do business with either person ever again. After the OP tries to hand me the money for the seller and I refuse, the OP could then give it to the seller and I will still refuse. Think of straw purchases like virginity. Once you give it up, you can't get it back.

So you can follow the advice of people who seem to think as long as it gets explained out, everything is ok. However, you will find many FFLs will not agree with you and you will not be finishing your business in their shop. And that is their right. Again, the straw purchase thing is a very touchy subject. It is so convoluted and subjective, you do not want to get caught in that trap. I would also encourage you not to bad mouth an FFL when they deny your purchase because you took the money out of your pocket and handed it to the FFL for another man's DROS.

That is why I recommend the less a dealer knows the better. If I see the money come out of the person who is doing the background check on the gun they are buying from me's pocket, I have little to question. If I see the money go from one man to another I could still question it and if I feel uncomfortable at all, I am encouraged by the ATF to deny the sale. To help encourage me, the ATF does straw purchase stings. Is it worth it to risk it?

I addressed the questions and gave answers based on what the OP stated. The seller was going to take money out of his pocket and pay for the handgun for the buyer. And you wish us to believe that the majority of dealers would be ok with that?

Hopefully most of you understand what I am getting at and can address specifically what I have referenced based on the OP. Kemasa seems to be stuck in other threads.

For the sake of not turning this into a pissing match, I won't be responding to my clearly laid out post and reasoning as I have said all that needs to be said. You can have the last word kemasa, which I am sure you will.

Cokebottle
12-02-2009, 10:17 PM
If the OP is giving me the money for the seller's transaction, that is plain and simply a straw purchase.
Not exactly the same situation, but on other threads regarding gifts (that may or may not be coverable by an intrafamilial transfer), it has been recommended that the gift giver work out a "layaway" or "deposit" where all but the last few dollars of the gun is paid for, then the gift receiver pays the balance and processes the paperwork to begin the 10 day wait.

Would this be kosher, or would you consider that to be questionable?

tenpercentfirearms
12-02-2009, 10:39 PM
Not exactly the same situation, but on other threads regarding gifts (that may or may not be coverable by an intrafamilial transfer), it has been recommended that the gift giver work out a "layaway" or "deposit" where all but the last few dollars of the gun is paid for, then the gift receiver pays the balance and processes the paperwork to begin the 10 day wait.

Would this be kosher, or would you consider that to be questionable?

It is tough to say. The 4473 gives an example where gift giver is buying the gun and then lawfully giving it to gift receiver. Let's remember in many other states no FFL would be required for the gift! We have the complex process where that firearm could not simply be given away, but then must be turned around re-DROSed as a PPT, with the exception of intra familial transfers.

I have another one for you. Gift certificates. You come in and give a gift certificate, how does that play into the straw purchase game? Obviously most of us probably issue gift certificates. Are we encouraging straw purchases? I don't think so, but something to think about.

Also a husband comes in with his wife. He fills out the DROS, she writes the check from the joint account or even her own account?

Again, this is why I urge the consumer caution on the straw purchase front. It really is a potential mess.

I tell you what, I will e-mail Jan White of the Fresno BATFE and cut and paste some of these questions and ask for her opinion. I will post up the answers.

kemasa
12-03-2009, 8:53 AM
Quite funny Wes. You admit that your claims in the other thread are questionable, which is clearly not the same as clearly legal. The CA DOJ not agree with you either, which tends to make that less than questionable.

In the case of this thread, perhaps you should so a little reading before you dig yourself a deeper hole. A hint is page 4. Who pays is not relevant, although it can be something which might raise questions and if the answers are not correct, then it could be a strawman purchase.

You need not ask anyone. You need only turn the page and read the instructions.

Since some might not get the hint, from page 4 of the 4473:


Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For the purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRING THE FIREARM FOR YOURSELF ... You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.


The key is that you have to be acquiring the firearm for yourself. If you are, no matter who pays, it is NOT a strawman purchase. The only issue for the FFL regarding who pays is to ensure that the person filling out the forms is acquiring the firearm for himself/herself. In the above case, it is explained that it is a trade and with all the details it is clear. The only issue in this case is whether the FFL would believe that is a trade. Of course, it really does not make sense to be anything else. One person is doing a PPT and the other is paying for a firearm for the first person. If this was a strawman purchase, that would not make any sense.

This is a FALSE statement: "If the OP is giving me the money for the seller's transaction, that is plain and simply a straw purchase." You need more information to know if it is actually a straw purchase. It is something to be careful with since it *could* be a straw purchase, but it is not 100%.

tenpercentfirearms
12-03-2009, 6:50 PM
Quite funny Wes. You admit that your claims in the other thread are questionable, which is clearly not the same as clearly legal. The CA DOJ not agree with you either, which tends to make that less than questionable.

In the case of this thread, perhaps you should so a little reading before you dig yourself a deeper hole. A hint is page 4. Who pays is not relevant, although it can be something which might raise questions and if the answers are not correct, then it could be a strawman purchase.

You need not ask anyone. You need only turn the page and read the instructions.

Since some might not get the hint, from page 4 of the 4473:



The key is that you have to be acquiring the firearm for yourself. If you are, no matter who pays, it is NOT a strawman purchase. The only issue for the FFL regarding who pays is to ensure that the person filling out the forms is acquiring the firearm for himself/herself. In the above case, it is explained that it is a trade and with all the details it is clear. The only issue in this case is whether the FFL would believe that is a trade. Of course, it really does not make sense to be anything else. One person is doing a PPT and the other is paying for a firearm for the first person. If this was a strawman purchase, that would not make any sense.

This is a FALSE statement: "If the OP is giving me the money for the seller's transaction, that is plain and simply a straw purchase." You need more information to know if it is actually a straw purchase. It is something to be careful with since it *could* be a straw purchase, but it is not 100%.
Kemasa, it is too bad you had to be a douche bag in your explanation. After re-reading with emphasis on "or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself", I agree that gives the dealer more protection if properly explained by the buyer and seller. However, you will note that you left out "(for example, redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner)". In neither of those examples does it state when paying for someone else's legal trade. Again, just because they don't list an example doesn't mean we can't expand the definition, but a dealer could say that since the example of the trade we are talking about isn't included, they don't consider it a "otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself."

Too bad you had to use a condescending tone and try to humiliate me instead of just being clear and as you always say, "refraining from personal attacks." Clearly I read the passage as I am the one who quoted it. Clearly this isn't about me digging a hole, this is about us becoming more educated and being smarter dealers. Don't be so quick to forget you originally quoted in this thread that a straw purchase revolved around whether one of the purchasers were prohibited or not and whether they are trying to avoid the one in 30 days. Clearly, you were not reading the 4473 when you started this thread, so don't act all high and mighty and insinuate I didn't read it when I clearly posted it.

I will admit that your explanation makes sense and I had overlooked the significance of "or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself." I have no problem admitting when I am wrong or make mistakes as I am not perfect. After all, my entire point here is that dealers tend to err on the side of caution. I will swallow my pride for the sake of this discussion.

I still wouldn't advocate handing the money to the dealer for another purchaser either way. Other dealers might not care about what you try to explain, they might simply say no. It is still not clear you are acquiring it for yourself if someone else hands over the money. It can depend on which order you start the transaction. If you try starting the DROS on the new gun first and then after being told no due to the money being in the wrong hands, try to explain you were going to do a PPT to, I wouldn't believe you and would just say no. If you started with the PPT, again, hand the money to the guy who just sold the PPT and then he can hand the money to the dealer. That leaves zero question as to who is really acquiring the firearm.

Again, I still urge prudence in this situation for dealers who don't particularly care for explanations, but err on the side of caution. You as a consumer might end up being rejected if this isn't done properly, whether the dealer is right or wrong, they don't have to process transactions they are uncomfortable with.

kemasa
12-04-2009, 10:45 AM
Now, now Wes, don't you get tired of the name calling? Perhaps not as you ego is getting in the way. Who pays is JUST a warning sign and gives the FFL cause to ask more questions and determine what is going on. If I were to come to your place and pay for a Sig for you, so that you know more about them, there would be nothing illegal about that.

In the case of the trade, BOTH people are acquiring the firearms for themselves, so it does meet the condition. Notice that a person can buy a firearm as a gift for another person and that is considered a legal sale and not a straw purchase. For the most part this does not apply in CA since the firearm would have to be transferred to the person who gets the gift, but there is a case where it has to be done in this manner. Also, in this case the money really does not play a role. Since the one transfer is a PPT, the one gun per month does not apply. Both are submitting a DROS, so clearly neither is prohibited. So, the only reason someone would do that is to avoid the multiple handgun purchase form for the Feds. Under what thinking could this be a straw purchase? It would be cheaper if the one person submitted both DROS as they would get a $4 discount.

Bonus question, can a person between 18 and 21 legally own and possess a handgun and if so, how can the transfer be legally done?

BOTH of the issues that I mentioned were getting around specific laws and that the firearm was not being acquired for the person filling out the forms. It does apply and is a straw purchase, even if you do not understand it.

I do not understand your statement regarding swallowing your pride. This is not about ego, it is about learning and there is nothing wrong with admitting that you made a mistake and were wrong. It does not reduce your pride. The only thing that I can think of is that you dislike my being correct and if someone else were to say the same thing, your reaction would be different.

If both people come in (or call first) and explain what they want to do, there is absolutely no problem. Yes, some FFLs might have an issue, but regardless of the situation you will be able to find FFLs who don't want to do something.

For example, if two people walk and and both want to buy the same .22 rifle and only one person pulls out the money to pay for both, the likelihood that it is a straw purchase is low. It is costing them more money since two DROS need to be submitted. It would help the FFL to know what the deal is though.

Sometimes it is best to explain, other times it is not.

Kestryll
12-04-2009, 11:03 AM
Okay, that's enough of the personal comments and digs, this thread is done.