PDA

View Full Version : FFLs Required to PPT Off-List Lowers?


GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 4:01 PM
So, we all know this to be true:

I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer.

Example:
a. For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction
b. For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of $10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.


(PC section 12072(d))

Now, we also know that there are only a few select FFLs who are willing to provide their FFL transfers for out of state or non-PPT transactions, and even fewer for off-list AK receivers. The question is, can we force ANY FFL such as Turners or any other dealer that is unwilling to touch these receivers, to do a PPT? It is, as I understand it, the law (so long as the receivers are indeed off-list and legal).

tenpercentfirearms
04-21-2006, 5:33 PM
You might be able to, but why would you want to? Take your whopping $10 business elsewhere. Getting them to accept a PPT is going to take pressure from the DOJ and I am sure the DOJ isn't going to get right on it.

GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 5:44 PM
You might be able to, but why would you want to? Take your whopping $10 business elsewhere. Getting them to accept a PPT is going to take pressure from the DOJ and I am sure the DOJ isn't going to get right on it.

mainstream acceptance would be one. obviously, we and the few FFL dealers such as yourself believe whole heartedly that these receivers are legal. but, i'm sure deep down, there's a hint of uncertainly whether or not "58 DAs"...yada yada. it would be nice to having the deeper pocket backing of larger shops.

having said that, the main thing would be convenience. as much as i enjoy driving down to riverside for the umpteenth time, it does take a good amount of my time, not only in the commute but also waiting hours at a time in line. if it's the law, it's the law, and if the DOJ is brought in to "enforce it," then that would be better than any letter written...especially when it comes to off-list AKs.

xenophobe
04-21-2006, 6:22 PM
No.

The DOJ still considers these unrestricted assault weapons and intends on listing them. They also state that 58 DAs may consider these illegal. Any FFL has the right to refuse doing something they think might get them into trouble...

GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 7:31 PM
No.

The DOJ still considers these unrestricted assault weapons and intends on listing them. They also state that 58 DAs may consider these illegal. Any FFL has the right to refuse doing something they think might get them into trouble...

i understand them being able to reject any FFL transfers, but doesn't the letter of the law require them to do PPTs IF the item being transferred is legal? just wanted to note i'm inquiring versus preaching.

ohsmily
04-21-2006, 8:20 PM
i understand them being able to reject any FFL transfers, but doesn't the letter of the law require them to do PPTs IF the item being transferred is legal? just wanted to note i'm inquiring versus preaching.

Who says it is legal? You? They are going to take your word for it? As Xeno said, they can refuse anything they think might be illegal. So, unless you have a DOJ agent there telling them that it is legal, go elsewhere, they don't have to do it.

GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 8:25 PM
Who says it is legal? You? They are going to take your word for it? As Xeno said, they can refuse anything they think might be illegal. So, unless you have a DOJ agent there telling them that it is legal, go elsewhere, they don't have to do it.

well, considering no one has been arrested for DROSing the lowers, wouldn't you agree that the DOJ considers them to be legal? i agree with what xeno is saying about the "gray" area, and really, i'm just playing devil's advocate here. one could argue that a DOJ letter stating the legality is more binding than a DOJ agent there telling them it is legal.

ohsmily
04-21-2006, 8:28 PM
well, considering no one has been arrested for DROSing the lowers, wouldn't you agree that the DOJ considers them to be legal? i agree with what xeno is saying about the "gray" area, and really, i'm just playing devil's advocate here. one could argue that a DOJ letter stating the legality is more binding than a DOJ agent there telling them it is legal.

Sure...so you show them the letter and they say, I want an actual notarized letter from the DOJ that I won't be prosecuted for transferring this...OR, they say "how do I know you didn't create this letter". Bottom line, you aren't going to be able to compel them to do the transfer.

(Yes, I know they are legal, but if the FFL doesn't think so and you can't show him definitive law, like a statute or something he can look up on the DOJ website stating that FFLs can register them, he can say take a hike).

GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 8:45 PM
yeah, i know it would be a tough or near impossible sell. technically, wouldn't harrott be sufficient enough?

once again, i'm just spurring up conversation and dialogue here. not advocating this, but it sure would be interesting if the DOJ was brought in to some type of hearing to "force" a non-compliant dealer to begin performing such transfers.

my feeling is that many on this board jumped through hoops and were successful in convincing a handful of dealers that these lowers were in fact, legal. it is this same type of persuasion that could be used in getting the larger dealers (ones with arguably more to lose) to recognize the legality. how far of a stretch would be it to say "the SJGE and other xxxx CA FFL dealers legally DROSed," therefore the receivers are legal to PPT?

going one step further, the DOJ has been relatively forthcoming in stating the legality of the receivers in a written letter. it may be reasonably safe to say they would respond with a letter stating the REQUIREMENT for any FFL dealer to PPT these receivers. having such an original document would carry much weight.

kantstudien
04-21-2006, 8:51 PM
unless you have a DOJ agent there telling them that it is legal...

Even if the DOJ agent were present, the FFL could still tell all of you to piss off. What's the agent going to do, fine the FFL $5.00 for not doing a PPT? :rolleyes:

The FFL could say "It's not the first Tuesday of the month, so it is not PPT day. Sorry." Or my favorite: "Storage fees of $10 per hour begin the minute after the 10th 24hr period has elapsed. We also do not allow you to pick up until the 12th day." Or better yet: "We require visual confirmation that you own a safe, so either bring it in your truck or else be prepared to purchase a CA-compliant locking device, which I happen to sell for $100."

artherd
04-21-2006, 8:54 PM
Who says it is legal? You? They are going to take your word for it? As Xeno said, they can refuse anything they think might be illegal. So, unless you have a DOJ agent there telling them that it is legal, go elsewhere, they don't have to do it.

Furthermore, the DOJ agent can't even give proper binding legal advice...

So unless they had the ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF, and also SOMEHOW FORMALLY RETAINED HIS SERVICES AS LEGAL CONSUL, the FFL really dosen't have any way of knowing.

You really ought to have a Supreme level judge there as well, convening a full court, to issue a binding case law ruleing (Harrott is just barely good enough, but not for what you want.)

Can't blame some for being skitish. Conversely, my future business will go to those who JUMPED IN AT THE BEGINING, eg Mr Wes, RMB Enterprises, and others who will go unmentioned but unforgotten.

GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 8:56 PM
i hear you guys, i certainly don't hold ANY dealer accountable for not wanting to touch it. just one of those things that peaked my curiosity, and i hadn't seen the topic covered at all on CGNers.

artherd
04-21-2006, 8:57 PM
once again, i'm just spurring up conversation and dialogue here. not advocating this, but it sure would be interesting if the DOJ was brought in to some type of hearing to "force" a non-compliant dealer to begin performing such transfers.
This has to be THE WORST idea I have heard in a long time... Let's NOT pit DOJ against FFLs in this state.

DOJ barely issues a non-binding letter with qualifiers and exemptions already. They're not going to issue anything that could even be misconstrued as compelling FFLs to transfer these things.

GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 9:16 PM
This has to be THE WORST idea I have heard in a long time... Let's NOT pit DOJ against FFLs in this state.

DOJ barely issues a non-binding letter with qualifiers and exemptions already. They're not going to issue anything that could even be misconstrued as compelling FFLs to transfer these things.

let me ask you this ben, before you received the initial letter from the DOJ discussing the legality of STAG receivers, what was your thought process? while you may have been fairly confident that they were legal, did you think the DOJ would respond back indicating as such? clearly, the outcome worked in your favor, and certainly all of ours, so a bit of gratitude is definitely owed to you for your efforts.

"not advocating" suggests it is not an "idea," certainly not one i'm looking to pursue. but, you can't deny it isn't out of the realm of possibilty. what's happened in the last few months already supports this. bottom line is, if the DOJ considers them legal, and wrote a letter indicating this, how big of a stretch is it for them to write a letter saying it is legal to PPT? they are in the state already, legally. i'm sure they care far more about another receiver entering the border versus an already resident receiver passing hands from one CA individual to another.

ohsmily
04-21-2006, 9:46 PM
i hear you guys, i certainly don't hold ANY dealer accountable for not wanting to touch it. just one of those things that peaked my curiosity, and i hadn't seen the topic covered at all on CGNers.

piqued.......

GTKrockeTT
04-21-2006, 10:27 PM
piqued.......

i hate you...:p

dbol
04-21-2006, 11:14 PM
i hear you guys, i certainly don't hold ANY dealer accountable for not wanting to touch it. just one of those things that peaked my curiosity, and i hadn't seen the topic covered at all on CGNers.

This has been discussed fairly recently. See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=30780

Also, could someone point out where the "illegal" exception to the requirement that FFLs do all requested PPTs is codified or otherwise supported?
The way I interpret it, the law requires all PPTs to be processed, regardless of the legality of the underlying firearm. The requirement that FFLs process all PPTs was put into place to encourage citizens to comply with the law (i.e. if it was hard to find an FFL to do a PPT because most or all FFLs thought certain transactions were questionable, then people would be forced to transfer firearms outside the system). Also, if the FFL thought a transferred item was illegal, it could always ask the DOJ or other law enforcement to come check it out during the 10-day waiting period.

GTKrockeTT
04-22-2006, 12:18 AM
This has been discussed fairly recently. See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=30780

Also, could someone point out where the "illegal" exception to the requirement that FFLs do all requested PPTs is codified or otherwise supported?
The way I interpret it, the law requires all PPTs to be processed, regardless of the legality of the underlying firearm. The requirement that FFLs process all PPTs was put into place to encourage citizens to comply with the law (i.e. if it was hard to find an FFL to do a PPT because most or all FFLs thought certain transactions were questionable, then people would be forced to transfer firearms outside the system). Also, if the FFL thought a transferred item was illegal, it could always ask the DOJ or other law enforcement to come check it out during the 10-day waiting period.

thanks bro, good read. ;)

artherd
04-22-2006, 10:09 AM
let me ask you this ben, before you received the initial letter from the DOJ discussing the legality of STAG receivers, what was your thought process? while you may have been fairly confident that they were legal, did you think the DOJ would respond back indicating as such?

Heck yes I did, but it did take 2+ years and many many letters to wedge an appropriate response out.

bottom line is, if the DOJ considers them legal, and wrote a letter indicating this, how big of a stretch is it for them to write a letter saying it is legal to PPT?

The problem is that DOJ cannot give binding legal advice. In the end they are just the Executive and prosecutorial arm. They are NOT the Judicial arm, and they're not even formally retained legal advisors.

DOJ can say it's legal to transfer, then bust you for transfering.

You can get approximately half of what you want, a letter claiming it's legal to transfer. But these letters still require a leap of faith for an FFL to follow! They are NOT court orders! They're just letters from non-retained lawyers sent standard first class mail to you and me. They afford relatively little protection,(without Harrot) and can be forged.

An FFL still has to make a 'leap of faith' to transfer right now.

Now! If we were to get a ORDER OF A COURT compelling an FFL to PPT a STAG-15, that would do the trick!