PDA

View Full Version : Turners got me... Yes, the gun lock thing! But there's more...


Corbin Dallas
03-16-2007, 11:17 AM
Ok, before you all go off on a tangent, I wanted to say THANKS to ALL the previous posts and to the members here a CalGuns about CA and Federal laws. I have written a letter to Mr. Ortiz of Turners about educating their sales force so they can provide the proper information to the consumer.

Here's basically what happened. I bought the firearm and asked the guy at the cash register about the gun lock thing. He said he didn't know, but the hunting sales reps would have the answer. So I finished paying the man and took my paper work to the hunting counter. Did the DROS and asked about the gun lock. The sales guy said my safe was not approved and I had to buy a lock or show a reciept showing I bought it within 30 days. Long story short they had no clue about the laws.

The following day I signed and presented a CA DOJ safe affidavit. The manager said that wouldn't work and I needed an approved lock for the "Federal" law with reciept. I told him that I wanted to see the paper work stating such. He could not provide it and said come back later.

Today I stopped by and they had the paperwork, but no where did it say I had to purchase a new one and show a 30day reciept. I offered to bring in a lock from my Glock and lock the firearm before leaving the store, he agreed and off I went. We'll see how next thursday goes.

Heres' my letter to Mr. Bill Ortiz:

Hello Mr. Ortiz,

I would like to ask that your company (Turners Outdoorsman) make it very clear to the consumer about what his required from the consumer to purchase a firearm BEFORE committing to said purchase.

My gripe comes from the nickel and dime act I am getting after the sale about a gun lock. Granted, the item is only $6, however I did not spend almost $2000 on a gun safe only to have a box full of cheap gun locks laying around. If the cheap locks are better than my gun safe they I guess I should stop using a safe and put all my weapons under the bed with a cheap lock on them.

Here is what I propose.


1) Revise your own website to reflect the changes in the laws so consumers are aware.

http://www.turners.com/engage/buyingguns.html#6

6. Why do I have to buy a gunlock or trigger lock with the purchase of my gun?

(a). California law requires that all firearms sold, be transferred with a trigger lock, cable lock, qualifying gun cabinet or lock box, or gun safe. Persons who already own a safe or lock box can sign an affidavit attesting to ownership of those devices.



2) Turners employees understand and provide the proper documentation to satisfy the California approved firearm safety device.

California Law - ARTICLE 4.5. FIREARMS SAFETY DEVICES

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12087.php?PHPSESSID=4af11d39862125467e7c71ef11ffdd d1

Then provide them with a safe affidavit information if the consumer requests it. Pursuant to section 12087.6. and 12088.1.d.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/gsaff.pdf?PHPSESSID=575f55a0d487b3ba6d3a2209ee0ed9 ea

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if both of the following apply:
(1) The purchaser or transferee owns a gun safe that meets the standards set forth in Section 12088.2. Gun safes shall not be required to be tested, and therefore may meet the standards without appearing on the Department of Justice roster.
(2) The purchaser or transferee presents an original receipt for purchase of the gun safe, or other proof of purchase or ownership of the gun safe as authorized by the Attorney General, to the firearms dealer. The dealer shall maintain a copy of this receipt or proof of purchase with the dealers' record of sales of firearms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF the customer does not have a safe, then they will be required to purchase a lock either from Turners or any other company and provide a receipt dated within 30 days pursuant to section 12088.1.e.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if all of the following apply:
(1) The purchaser or transferee purchases an approved safety device no more than 30 days prior to the day the purchaser or transferee takes possession of the firearm.
(2) The purchaser or transferee presents the approved safety device to the firearms dealer when picking up the firearm.
(3) The purchaser or transferee presents an original receipt to the firearms dealer which shows the date of purchase, the name, and the model number of the safety device.
(4) The firearms dealer verifies that the requirements in (1) to (3), inclusive, have been satisfied.
(5) The firearms dealer maintains a copy of the receipt along with the dealers' record of sales of firearms.


To accommodate the new Federal Laws that do not accept the California DOJ safe affidavit, have them either bring in a safety lock or buy one from either Turners or any other company pursuant to 18 USC 921(a)(34) as listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

There is however an open letter to FFL's stated here:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/042106openletter-safetylocks.pdf

Which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
Washington, DC

April 21, 2006

OPEN LETTER TO FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES
CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005

This serves to notify you that Public Law 109-92 (119 Stat. 2095), the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was enacted October 26, 2005. Section 5 of Public Law 109-92, cited as the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (CSLA), amended the Gun Control Act by adding Section 922(z) to 18 U.S.C. This new section makes it generally unlawful for “any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person, other than another licensee, unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun.” The statute provides that it becomes effective on April 24, 2006. ATF has prepared the regulation that will implement this statute. At this time, the regulation is pending approval by the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget. The review process most likely will take several more months. Once the regulation is approved, ATF will publish an Interim Rule in the Federal Register regarding the new law. While the Interim Rule will not be published by April 24th, the requirement to “provide” a safety device with the transfer of any handgun is mandated beginning on that date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(z). Accordingly, licensees must make the necessary arrangements to provide secure gun storage or safety devices with the transfer of handguns from the April 24th effective date.

As enacted, the law does not require safety devices to be provided where the handgun transfer is between FFLs. The law also provides for additional exceptions. ATF will issue an Open Letter once the Interim Rule is published. “Questions and Answers” regarding the CSLA will be posted on our Web site at http://www.atf.gov clarifying certain points of the legislation. We look forward to industry members’ questions and comments. For additional information, please contact the Firearms Programs Division at (202) 927-7770.


Audrey Stucko
Deputy Assistant Director
Enforcement Programs and Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, in the above open letter, there is NO mention of any 30 day reqirement, ONLY that the consumer or dealer "PROVIDE" a saftey device with the transfer of any handgun.


Now I have purchased many things from Turners with great results, however this last run has really turned my mind from future purchases at Turners. I have provided you with necessary information to educate your sales force and potential consumers, I can only hope that you make this information available to everyone in your organization.

Thank you for your time, best of luck to you in the future!

Sincerely,
XXXX X XXXXXXXXX

Eric H.
03-16-2007, 11:19 AM
I'd also send him a link to this thread, so if he doesn't respond you know we can flame the company all we want.

Sharkill
03-16-2007, 11:36 AM
I am glad someone is standing up to them. I had to buy cheap lock 15 days ago for my springfield XD, even though I have CA DOJ approved safe (which I bought in Turners).

1911su16b870
03-16-2007, 11:39 AM
I've gone through the same thing. I'll try to return the new in the package lock with the receipt and see how they handle that! :)

CALI-gula
03-16-2007, 11:54 AM
First, I'm on your side in your questioning Turner's on this, as communication is key. Nobody should knock you for this, especially for calling them on it if the facts prove in your favor.

As frustrating as it may be, Turner's does not need to quote the law to you or be your legal advice on that law, in order for themselves to follow the law. If you were in a car asking a driver to drive faster than 35 MPH on a 35MPH stated road, and the driver declined, there is no law that states the driver needs to produce a copy of the CA vehicle code for you. However, if the driver was driving 50MPH in a 35MPH, stating that was the speed limit and you knew otherwise, it would be within your right to ask him to slow down, and prove the law to them if they did not do so. Why should you be at risk of injury or death due to reckless driving? ( That should be read as: Why should a clumsy trigger-lock put you at risk of injury or death because of it preventing quick access to your firearm for self-defense against an armed attacker within your home, when you have a better system of a DOJ approved instant-open safe? )

And... if Turner's is getting this wrong, it's within your right to communicate with them that htey need to follow the law properly! :D

So, I have a genuine question as I may have missed it, and I do support your decision to start communications with them if it is true.

In the "unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun" it seems to note only the seller may "provide" the lock, not the consumer.

Where does the law allow for the consumer to "provide" the secure storage device for the transfer? This is an honest question as I may have missed the consumer allowance in one of your links.


.

Corbin Dallas
03-16-2007, 12:03 PM
In the "unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun" it seems to note only the seller may "provide" the lock, not the consumer.

Where does the law allow for the consumer to "provide" the secure storage device for the transfer? This is an honest question as I may have missed the consumer allowance in one of your links.

Huh! I never even noticed that!!

Where was that so I can research it?

Thanks for pointing that out.

I also want to mention that I really don't want this to be a debate about who is right and wrong, merely giving you guys the means to fight for your rights as a consumer.

I have read all those turners pages (20+) about locks and all the bashing this or that.... Kinda lame that we cannot work towards a common goal.

So, please don't let this turn into a bash factor of 10,000,000 ya know??
(not directed at any one person or group of people, just a statement)

jessegpresley
03-16-2007, 12:08 PM
That's funny. You buy the gun and the safe there, and they still want to sell you a lock. I'd suggest showing your displeasure by taking your business elsewhere.

Corbin Dallas
03-16-2007, 12:19 PM
I didn't buy the safe from them, however I did spend almost $600 for the weapon.

There is no where in the store that states you will be required to purchase a lock or provide proof an CA DOJ approved lock purchase with receipt dated within 30days if the firearm does not include a lock.

Also, they state you cannot sign a safe affidavit, however that is not posted either. Nor are any other rules about this.

And if you go to thier own website, they state the wrong items so the sales manager says.

It's very confusing and I think my last Turners purchase.

Knauga
03-16-2007, 1:08 PM
The REAL important question to ask is what gun did you buy? :D

Hanniballs
03-16-2007, 1:17 PM
Just buy a lock at big5 pickup your firearms and return the lock to bigfive. problem solved and you don't have to deal with all that crap.

Res
03-16-2007, 1:23 PM
Let's say i were to buy a lock from my friend for $1, and he wrote me out a receipt. As long as the lock was certified, would that be sufficient?

thedrickel
03-16-2007, 1:25 PM
If the fed law really has no receipt requirement just get free locks from your local PD. Even someone from Turner's could go down there and get a bunch and give them away to people that sign the safe affidavit for the PRK requirements but still need a lock to satisfy the feds.

Librarian
03-16-2007, 1:54 PM
In the "unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun" it seems to note only the seller may "provide" the lock, not the consumer.

Where does the law allow for the consumer to "provide" the secure storage device for the transfer? This is an honest question as I may have missed the consumer allowance in one of your links. .This assumes that 'the transferee (buyer) is provided with' means 'has to buy at point of sale'; that's just one of the possible meanings of 'provided with' - it could also mean 'has', since the buyer could provide for himself.

Since the secure gun storage referred to in the law includes a safe (18 USC 921 (a) 34),
(34) The term “secure gun storage or safety device” means—
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means. the first way of using 'provided with' could mean 'seller must sell a safe to buyer with each purchase'. That's obviously silly, even for government, so I'll argue my second usage for 'provide with' is more likely.

But selling Turner's on the idea is a different matter. It isn't my license and business at risk here.

Corbin Dallas
03-16-2007, 3:19 PM
The REAL important question to ask is what gun did you buy? :D

Of course, someone HAD to ask that one.... LOL!

This one! mmmmmmmm

http://www.steyr-arms.at/uploads/pics/Pistole_M-A1_ohne_Licht_01.jpg

kap
03-16-2007, 4:00 PM
Nice, a Steyr M-A1. I have always wanted to shoot one just to see if I liked the trapezoid sights.

I dislike the requirement to buy a lock when you buy a lower. There should be some exemption when you are not buying a complete gun.

Kruzr
03-16-2007, 4:02 PM
This sounds like a Catch-22 situation between Federal and Calif. Laws. To meet the letter of the Federal Law, you need a lock, not a safe affadavit. But once you fall into the "need a lock category," then Calif. Law has to be met and the 30 day "buy a new one with a receipt requirement comes into play."

If you say you're crazy to get out on a Section 8, then you must be sane

We used to give away the free locks that the state supplied.......but those weren't approved for a handgun purchase in Calif. A receipt or lock purchase or safe affadavit was still needed.

Rob454
03-16-2007, 4:28 PM
Dude I HATE turners. Those guys are freaking idiots. They ALWAYS sell you a gun lock with the gun. They tried to pull that on me and I brought in my receipt for my safe. the guy tells me its not a DOJ apporved safe. I todl him I bought it here and YOU specifically told me it was a doj approved safe. So Im gonna bring it back and get my $$ back on it. and forget me picking up a 500$ 44 mag also I want my money back all of it. and forget me ever purchasing another gun from you guys ever. I said all this in a calm manner with other customers watching on. The guy started to stammer out a answer and I told him now this safe is perfectly legal and I dotn even have to bring in a receipt but I did and also the model #. the same safe you got on display right there on the show room floor. Either way this is the last time I buy anything from your store. I got my gun and walked out. i never went back there since.
Rob

CALI-gula
03-16-2007, 4:32 PM
Thanks for pointing that out.

I am sorry if pointing out a potential flaw in your attack on Turner's over this could be inconvenient. It was a geuine inquiry for support of your frustration with Turner's on this issue.

It's not an argument because I am on your side. I want to back you up, and pursue this, but it's wise to be sure of the facts before arrogantly firing off letters and calling for boycotts. The issue I am pointing out, is that the federal law, while having no time limit for ownership of the lock, also does not seem to allow for the consumer to provide the lock for the sale at all, unless I missed it somewhere. It seems to desginate the seller provides the lock. I have not seen where the Federal allows for a Safe Affidavit on handgun purchases.

I WANT to be shown the details there to show them to Turner's. I have not found them. Has anyone found them before we all go off half-cocked on Turner's over this?

I also want to mention that I really don't want this to be a debate about who is right and wrong, merely giving you guys the means to fight for your rights as a consumer.

But right or wrong on this law IS important when it comes to causing chaos for a gun dealer. Just how many gun dealers do we have left in CA compared to 10 years ago?

You haven't given the means to fight for our rights as consumers - you have left gaping ambiguity and have not proven without a doubt that Turner's is wrong on this issue. If we need to fight for our rights, just who are we fighting? Is it Turner's for interpreting the law wrong? Or do we need to fight legislators that made Turner's follow the law?

I have read all those turners pages (20+) about locks and all the bashing this or that.... Kinda lame that we cannot work towards a common goal.

I would like to work toward a goal, but ambiguity and misinformation can cause havoc and identify the wrong objective. In this case, is Turner's following the law, following the law incorrectly, or is the law just wrong?

.

Corbin Dallas
03-16-2007, 4:35 PM
Rob, I'm feeling you on that one.

What I'm hoping for at a minimum is clearly POSTED purchase rules in the store. If they are going to MAKE me buy a cheap lock, then INFORM me first.

As I said before, it's not the cost of the lock that upsets me, it's the nickel and dime attitude along with the complete lack of knowledge and stating Federal and California laws as if they wrote it themselves.

As it stands, I will pickup my weapon on thursday, but that will be my last from Turners.

Corbin Dallas
03-16-2007, 4:42 PM
I would like to work toward a goal, but ambiguity and misinformation can cause havoc and identify the wrong objective. In this case, is Turner's following the law, following the law incorrectly, or is the law just wrong?

Cali - I'm not upset at you and I hope you don't think I am. I am just looking for more info for the "JIC" factor.

So as it stands in easy talk...

1) To comply with federal laws, a consumer must have a safety device. But that same law does not say it has to be purchased within 30 days. Nor does it say it has to be CA DOJ approved.

Are we in agreement here? If so, I have a cable lock from my AR lower purchase.

Federal Law Satisfied - CHECK!

2) To comply with California Law, a consumer must either sign a safe affidavit, provide their own lock with receipt (CA DOJ Approved), or purchase a CA DOJ approved lock from the dealer.

Are we in agreement here too? If so, I have signed a safe affidavit.

CA Law Satisfied - CHECK!

So, this should work right?

Federal - LOCKED with cable lock
State - Signed safe affidavit

Did I miss something???

CALI-gula
03-16-2007, 4:43 PM
Rob, I'm feeling you on that one.

What I'm hoping for at a minimum is clearly POSTED purchase rules in the store. If they are going to MAKE me buy a cheap lock, then INFORM me first.

As I said before, it's not the cost of the lock that upsets me, it's the nickel and dime attitude along with the complete lack of knowledge and stating Federal and California laws as if they wrote it themselves.

As it stands, I will pickup my weapon on thursday, but that will be my last from Turners.
But it is not their rules, it's the Federal and CA rules. They are only following the law. They aren't nickel and diming you, the government is doing that.

I bet they haven't posted signs in their store that they charge tax on all purchases? Yet you know you are going to pay tax if you buy something right? Because it's the law. So if they don't have a sign that says you must pay sales tax on their sold goods, are you going to argue with them that you don't have to pay sales tax now?

You should know the law. They should know the law. Both should abide by it. And yes, if Turner's is wrong we need to give them the proper citation of the law to correct them.

.

Travis
03-16-2007, 4:54 PM
This sounds like a Catch-22 situation between Federal and Calif. Laws. To meet the letter of the Federal Law, you need a lock, not a safe affadavit. But once you fall into the "need a lock category," then Calif. Law has to be met and the 30 day "buy a new one with a receipt requirement comes into play."



A "catch 22" is when to laws contradict each other. In this case, someone can fill out a safe affidavit to satisfy CA law and a new [cheap] lock to satisfy federal law. Two actions that satify two laws without contradicting each other.

or

Just purchase a new lock in the past 30 days, satisfy both laws at the same time, and be done with it all.

If someone saves more than $7 buying at Turners, the new lock shouldn't be a big deal. If the $7 puts someone over budget, they should buy elsewhere. Letters and complaints don't speak nearly as loud as those who vote with their wallets.

CALI-gula
03-16-2007, 4:54 PM
Cali - I'm not upset at you and I hope you don't think I am. I am just looking for more info for the "JIC" factor.

So as it stands in easy talk...

1) To comply with federal laws, a consumer must have a safety device. But that same law does not say it has to be purchased within 30 days. Nor does it say it has to be CA DOJ approved.

Are we in agreement here? If so, I have a cable lock from my AR lower purchase.

Federal Law Satisfied - CHECK!

2) To comply with California Law, a consumer must either sign a safe affidavit, provide their own lock with receipt (CA DOJ Approved), or purchase a CA DOJ approved lock from the dealer.

Are we in agreement here too? If so, I have signed a safe affidavit.

CA Law Satisfied - CHECK!

So, this should work right?

Federal - LOCKED with cable lock
State - Signed safe affidavit

Did I miss something???

Well, I am seeing one defeating the other, and the other not able to fill a void.

Federal law overides state law. And where a Federal law is absent, the state law fills in to serve that region, but state can not overide federal. So a lock being CA approved still stands if the federal does not designate. Same way we still suffer under SB23 even though the Federal Clinton 1994 ban sunset 3 years ago.

And as far as I can tell, the Federal is not letting you provide your own on handgun purchases - buying elsewhere or affidavit. So if it doesn't, Federal law defeats the CA laws that previoulsy allowed you to do so, AND defeats the safe affidavit which was likewise a manner of providing our own. Which sucks, but it seems to be the case.

What I am wondering though is this:

If that Steyr was new, didn't it come with a cable lock? It should have; Did Turner's lose it? Or was it used or on consignment?

.

Kruzr
03-16-2007, 5:14 PM
A "catch 22" is when to laws contradict each other. In this case, someone can fill out a safe affidavit to satisfy CA law and a new [cheap] lock to satisfy federal law. Two actions that satify two laws without contradicting each other.

or

Just purchase a new lock in the past 30 days, satisfy both laws at the same time, and be done with it all.

If someone saves more than $7 buying at Turners, the new lock shouldn't be a big deal. If the $7 puts someone over budget, they should buy elsewhere. Letters and complaints don't speak nearly as loud as those who vote with their wallets.

Once you purchase a new lock, you've satisfied both laws.

If you buy a lock, don't fill out the safe affadavit.

ns3v3n
03-16-2007, 5:42 PM
dude, just buy a lock from them, when all the procedures are done, walk out to your car, drop of the gun, and go back in to return the lock LOL.

also writing a receipt works, i sold a gun to this guy and i wrote a note saying i sold the lock also for .50 cents to him. the guy at the gun store took the receipt and approved it.

if they are being such a-holes about it, dont give them your business, esp since you both the gun and safe from them. now they want to make a profit by selling you a lock? screw that.

Corbin Dallas
03-16-2007, 5:53 PM
Ok...

Just buy a lock...

Why should I have to when I have a safe? That's the point. I don't care if it's Turners or anyone else, if I have a safe and a cable lock then I have satisfied both requirements.


Where in the federal law does it state I must buy a new one (cable lock)? Please point this out to me, I don't see it.

(PS, I know federal law will not allow me to sign a safe affidavit)

So since I don't see anywhere in FEDERAL law that states I must buy a new lock, can't I provide my own cable lock?

All federal law says is:

This new section makes it generally unlawful for “any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person, other than another licensee, unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun.” The statute provides that it becomes effective on April 24, 2006. ATF has prepared the regulation that will implement this statute. At this time, the regulation is pending approval by the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget.

It says "SECURE GUN STORAGE" and it also says "PENDING APPROVAL".

Not only that, but the only thing 18USC 922(z) says is
"18 USC 922(z)(1). Dealers now required to provide SGSSDs with every firearm sold"

That doesn't say consumers have to buy one, only that dealers must have SGSSD's in stock for consumers to purchase.

And 18 USC 921 34(a) says nothing about a receipt within 30 days or purchase new from dealer only.

(34) The term “secure gun storage or safety device” means—
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.

So if I'm reading this correctly and you were to do a FTF PPT transfer, the seller or buyer would need to provide a cable lock if one was not included with the weapon.

Correct?

JUST FEDERAL, NOT STATE.... We'll do that next.

Knauga
03-16-2007, 5:54 PM
Dude I HATE turners. They ALWAYS sell you a gun lock with the gun.

In all fairness, I bought my last 3 guns at turners and one came with a lock included the other two were Springfield Armory 1911's with the stupid ILS (integral locking system) which I promptly removed. They did not try to sell me any locks, didn't even discuss it... I don't even know if the ILS meets CA DOJ requirements... especially since it takes me about 5 minutes to remove them...

Of course I just bought an old Moison Nagant rifle at Big 5 and they want me to bring in my serial and model number for my safe otherwise I have to buy a trigger lock :rolleyes:

kantstudien
03-16-2007, 7:51 PM
We used to give away the free locks that the state supplied.......but those weren't approved for a handgun purchase in Calif. A receipt or lock purchase or safe affadavit was still needed.

Since it is not legal for a CA gun store to even possess a "unapproved" locking device, how could you legally even have them in the store to give away? :confused:

Kruzr
03-16-2007, 8:45 PM
Since it is not legal for a CA gun store to even possess a "unapproved" locking device, how could you legally even have them in the store to give away? :confused:

Ask the DOJ. They are the ones who bought and distributed 20 million of them. Maybe because we are a range and don't stock new guns. I have no idea. No receipt, it don't count.

They would go fast. We would go through a case of them in two weeks. I think lots of people needed bike locks.

thedrickel
03-16-2007, 8:54 PM
I think lots of people needed bike locks.


Yep I have discovered that they are good for locking your wheels to your frame. As a deterrent only of course, they are pretty ****ty locks.

CALI-gula
03-16-2007, 10:20 PM
Since it is not legal for a CA gun store to even possess a "unapproved" locking device, how could you legally even have them in the store to give away? :confused:


The trigger lock law went into effect before the law for DOJ APPROVED trigger locks was established. Some places like Los Angeles adopted ordinances requiring trigger locks before the state was doing it, which was really the forerunner to the state adopting it.

Doesn't anyone recall that for a year-and-a-half or so, where dealers were making you buy the $1.00 plastic injection molded 2-piece "egg" trigger-lock in the little plastic package? It used a two prong key made out of stamped steel, about the size and diameter of a dime, and the lock itself used a spool type of axle with a plate one side, where the two prongs fit into to turn the "locking" mechanism. Half the time they didn't fit, could be manipulated with your thumb to open them, they were so sloppy the trigger still worked, or they would not lock on at all.

The DOJ gave thousands away, because some of the high volume stores complained they did not have a supplier to provide trigger locks, or they had run out and trigger locks were back-ordered, so people were unable to pick up their guns after their 10-Day waiting period because having the trigger lock was required in order to pick up your gun.


.

Librarian
03-16-2007, 10:30 PM
dude, just buy a lock from them, when all the procedures are done, walk out to your car, drop off the gun, and go back in to return the lock This looks like the answer. Be sure they ring up the lock separately so it's easy to refund your money.

Nothing in either CA or Fed law says you have to KEEP the lock, just that you have to HAVE one before the dealer can complete the transfer.

M4inCA, I'm quite sure you're correct in your reading of 18 USC 922 (z) here. It's just that convincing the dealers without backup from BATFE is unlikely to fly.

CALI-gula
03-16-2007, 11:01 PM
This looks like the answer. Be sure they ring up the lock separately so it's easy to refund your money.

Nothing in either CA or Fed law says you have to KEEP the lock, just that you have to HAVE one before the dealer can complete the transfer.

M4inCA, I'm quite sure you're correct in your reading of 18 USC 922 (z) here. It's just that convincing the dealers without backup from BATFE is unlikely to fly.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure Turner's refuses returns on gun locks purchased in correlation to a handgun purchase. They already suspect the drill.

However, if Turner's won't accept the safe affidavit, but will accept a receipt from the past 30 days for a gun lock bought elsewhere, I would buy one elsewhere just to smite them, even if it costs you more money, show them your receipt for lock purchase (and bring the lock) and tell them that you do not want to purchase their lock and want it returned BEFORE picking up your gun.

THEN return your lock to other retailer. :cool:

.

MrTuffPaws
03-16-2007, 11:37 PM
Depends on the FFL. Some take a safe, some make you buy a lock. Some let you bring a lock in and wave it around.

randy
03-17-2007, 3:16 AM
Maybe Turners should just increase the cost of the firearm by whatever the price of a lock is and then there wouldn't be a problem. If you like a gun for $400.00 lots of people would buy it for $415.

Maddog5150
03-17-2007, 1:21 PM
LOL@Randy
You know, if every FFL in the US did that then this wouldnt be an issue :p

But really. Like someone has said in the past here. Someone buys a handgun from anywhere between 400 bucks up then will throw a huge fit in the store over a six dollar lock. Ive seen it also! I just kinda look down and feel embarressed for the guy because he is making a huge scene over "its the principle" and eight bucks. It never fails either that as soon as they leave another customer will walk up and ask what the big deal eight bucks is.
Its a crappy law, its a vague law, Kaliforniastan has soooooo many gun laws you cant expect everyone to be scholars and if you want sales people who can give you advice to the pinpoint of all these wacked out laws then be prepared to pay 500+% on firearms to pay for the Lawyers who will be selling the guns.

HowardW56
03-17-2007, 1:50 PM
LOL@Randy
You know, if every FFL in the US did that then this wouldnt be an issue :p

But really. Like someone has said in the past here. Someone buys a handgun from anywhere between 400 bucks up then will throw a huge fit in the store over a six dollar lock. Ive seen it also! I just kinda look down and feel embarressed for the guy because he is making a huge scene over "its the principle" and eight bucks. It never fails either that as soon as they leave another customer will walk up and ask what the big deal eight bucks is.
Its a crappy law, its a vague law, Kaliforniastan has soooooo many gun laws you cant expect everyone to be scholars and if you want sales people who can give you advice to the pinpoint of all these wacked out laws then be prepared to pay 500+% on firearms to pay for the Lawyers who will be selling the guns.


It’s all BS.... I have a half a dozen locks here still in their packages.....

For the $7.00 or so it isn't worth the hassle...

Corbin Dallas
03-17-2007, 2:36 PM
LOL@Randy
But really. Like someone has said in the past here. Someone buys a handgun from anywhere between 400 bucks up then will throw a huge fit in the store over a six dollar lock. Ive seen it also! I just kinda look down and feel embarressed for the guy because he is making a huge scene over "its the principle" and eight bucks.

Exactly, and yet we go buy a $35,000 truck and when the salesman says "ENJOY, OH, By the way.... you'll need to fill it up before you can drive home...." don't you feel HAD???

I mean, it's just $40 for gas, what's the big deal right?????

Maddog5150
03-18-2007, 12:22 AM
after paying 35,000 for a new truck I wouldnt make a scene for 40 bucks. I am just not going to make a scene for .00113% or so of the item. I guess I have too much pride.
Not being instulting but the whole "its the principle" kinda reminds me everytime of the movie "Barber Shop" (weather its cable locks or anything else in life that has 'its the principle' argument) where those two guys steal the ATM and are about to stow it when one guy almost blows their cover, runs out and tries to beat up another guy because something like "that fool owes me two dollars!"

Its a few bucks, just pick up your gun and be happy that its no longer a 15 or 20 day wait and that the gunshop just sold you an awsome .22 target that will last longer than a brick :D
I think thats worth the 6-8 bucks. Spinner target!!!

Corbin Dallas
03-18-2007, 9:11 AM
This is where you and I disagree.

If you tell me upfront I have to buy it, I will accept it and call it a day.

If you let me pay for everything and THEN come back at me with some crap like this, it pisses me off and I'm going to call you on it.

Simple.

If life were so easy, people wouldn't haggle about price on anything. I'm sure in your life you either talked someone down in price or got something else tossed in with the sale.

Is this any different? I think not.

I. M. Nobody
03-18-2007, 10:18 AM
The feds sent a letter to all FFLs telling us that we can't let a handgun leave the store without it being in a locked container. Calif law states that all handguns must be in a locked container of some sort when transported. This even applies to repairs. we tell all customers that fill out a safe affidavit to bring in a locking container with a lock when they pick up their Handgun.

Some Handguns come with a lock but no way to lock the container. We will drill a hole in the box for the customer or ask them to bring a lockable box on pick up.

AJD
03-18-2007, 10:19 AM
I just did a PPT at Fowler Gun Room about an hour ago and the person I sold the handgun filled out the safe affidavit and didn't have to buy a lock. According to the guy at Fowler the law hasn't changed.

I. M. Nobody
03-18-2007, 10:34 AM
I just did a PPT at Fowler Gun Room about an hour ago and the person I sold the handgun filled out the safe affidavit and didn't have to buy a lock. According to the guy at Fowler the law hasn't changed.

Tell your friend to bring a locking box when he picks up the Handgun.Both the dealer and buyer could be cited and lose the firearm.Hell who knows Iggy could be sitting outside just waiting.

CALI-gula
03-18-2007, 10:58 AM
I agree with M4inCA's issue on this, and his frustration should not be disregarded at all. My only indifference to it would be that blaming Turner's for following the law as interpreted is not the objective.

First, I agree that if M4inCA has found a flaw in the way Turner's IS interpreting it, yes, it should be pointed out to them, no different than if Turner's was making people wait 15 days, rather than 10 days for pick-up, because Turner's hadn't realize that changed. But find the exact details in the law to point it out to them correctly - unfortunately, due to the Federal law overriding state law, I don't see where Turner's is wrong on this.

Second, unless it was after the fact, which doesn't seem to be the case because M4inCA is currently in his 10 day wait, I doubt that they didn't inform M4inCA of the lock purchase; I bought a CZ-52 handgun AND a high-end rifle from Turner's on 1/29/2007 (almost 2 full months ago) where the CZ-52 did not come with a lock, and clearly itemized on the invoice given to me before paying at the cash register was the notation:

(1) 761903368610 Dac Tech Cable Lock Doj ........ $5.99

Though I had already heard of this Federal law going in force at that time before my purchase, I DID ask at that time, and they DID tell me the CA Safe Affidavit was no longer valid for handgun purchases, just long-guns, due to the Federal law. This was from the store manager at the time as he was doing the sale, and he did not make me buy a lock for the rifle - he had me fill out the safe affidavit.

However, admittedly I did not ask them if I could still provide my own lock for the sale with receipt (according to CA laws) because I knew that lock would be about the same price at Kmart/Walmart/Sears for one - if not more. I also interpreted that the Federal law does not allow for it, so I understood Turner's position. I could have easily made a fuss about it then and told them I would not pay for it or the gun, and walked out.

Third, we should ALL be pissed we are being forced to pay extra for these unnecessary locks, especially when we have DOJ approved safes, and for nearly the past 3 years, that was acceptable for not having to purchase a piece of junk glorified Christmas tree ornament. But we should be pissed enough at the GOVERNMENT for passing these stupid laws. Should we be pissed off at Turner's because they must follow CA's stupid AW laws? Or that they must charge taxes?

Fourth, I do NOT agree with disregarding or belittling this extra cost factor, just because it is only "a few dollars more" over the cost of hundreds of dollars. The people that have passed these Anti-2nd Amendment oriented "buy a lock per handgun" laws have used the same example being purported here to get that law passed of "hey, what's a few extra bucks on top of the price of a gun for _(fill in the blank)_ to protect the children and stop crime?". Well what comes next? That fill in the blank factor could get COSTLY in ways we haven’t imagined.

Fifth, as others have suggested on Calguns, we should suggest Turner's start a free lock exchange - for those not needing them, like myself, people can donate their un-opened locks back to the "lock giveaway" program with each handgun purchase, so Turner's can give them away to other people without having to charge. Eventually, it will come back to benefit you because there would seemingly always be a revolving door of locks - hell, I could start them off with about 40 cable-locks right now that I have sitting in a box, never opened. Most new guns now days come with a lock, so the proportion of locks to guns without locks would be a surplus - but you would eventually buy a special consignment handgun or C&R, and a free lock from the program would come with it. If Turner's says it's not about profit and they are just following the law, then tell them to put their money where their mouth is.

Lastly, I somehow don't think the former will happen; the fact that Turner's charges a "Turner's Handling Fee" OVER the $19.00 DROS Fee, the $1.00 DOJ Safety Fee, and the $5.00 DOJ Eq Fee where almost no other dealer charges a handling fee (though allowable by CA law) tells me they would scoff at the "lock giveaway" program I described. The forced lock sale is just a bit extra in profit the government allows them to charge. :mad:



.

Corbin Dallas
03-18-2007, 12:28 PM
Cali - Well said. I can only hope my letter to Turners results in some changes of policy in their stores.

And actually, they didn't inform me of purchasing a lock nor is it on my receipt. Only when I asked to see the firearm did the guy mention, oh yea, this doesn't come with a lock so you'll need to buy one... Something that could have been avoided by POSTING or informing the buyer PRIOR to the sale.

I'll let you know Thursday afternoon how it all goes down. I have my paperwork, old cable lock, safe affidavit and a new lock from wally world that I intend on returning afterwards in unopened condition. (last resort)

Maddog5150
03-18-2007, 7:31 PM
This is where you and I disagree.

If you tell me upfront I have to buy it, I will accept it and call it a day.

If you let me pay for everything and THEN come back at me with some crap like this, it pisses me off and I'm going to call you on it.

Simple.

If life were so easy, people wouldn't haggle about price on anything. I'm sure in your life you either talked someone down in price or got something else tossed in with the sale.

Is this any different? I think not.

I respect that you disagree :)
However your talking to the wrong about haggling or getting someone to throw in something with a sale. I dont haggle. I have family who are middle eastern (related by marraige and no they are nut muslim) and they loooooove to haggle. It anoys me to no end so I just never really haggled for prices. I usualy by Vehicles on "red tag" sales or something like that. I never ask for anything extra to be thrown in. Sometimes it happens and I never ask which makes me pleasently suprised :D
Just sharing that so you might understand why I find your argument difficult to understand. Laws the law, locks a lock, and misinformation from corperate higher-ups to the bottom of the totem pole are more common than a 1988 tops baseball card. :)

Librarian
03-18-2007, 8:22 PM
This Though I had already heard of this Federal law going in force at that time before my purchase, I DID ask at that time, and they DID tell me the CA Safe Affidavit was no longer valid for handgun purchases, just long-guns, due to the Federal law.is simply wrong.
unfortunately, due to the Federal law overriding state lawPlease envision dead horse [:eek: here].

Federal law in this case does not override state law. The letter of the Federal law, posted several times in this thread, quite clearly states that a safe is acceptable 'secure storage'.

The BATFE regulation, posted somewhere around here, does not contradict my statement, as it correctly refers to 'secure storage device as defined by 18 USC 921 (a) 34'.

24_minutes_to_1000
03-18-2007, 9:34 PM
This is where you and I disagree.

If you tell me upfront I have to buy it, I will accept it and call it a day.

If you let me pay for everything and THEN come back at me with some crap like this, it pisses me off and I'm going to call you on it.

Simple.

If life were so easy, people wouldn't haggle about price on anything. I'm sure in your life you either talked someone down in price or got something else tossed in with the sale.

Is this any different? I think not.


I agree 100% with you. Nothing irritates me more than some ticky tack BS charge that someone "forgot" to mention being applied at the point of sale.

This happened to me at Tabor's in San Bruno. I bought a pistol and when the total was rung up it seemed a little high. I looked at the receipt and there was a $15 buck charge, which I asked about. I was told it was a "paperwork" charge.

I said, "A paperwork charge?!" "Yes, for photocopying the forms".

A couple of crappy photocopies. I thought about canceling the sale, but I didn't as I needed the pistol to replace one I had sold, and I didn't want to go shopping around again.

Point is this for me, do that once to me, shame on you. If I give you an opportunity to do it to me again, shame on me.

So, I don't spend money in Tabor's. Could I? Yep. Powder, primers, cleaning supplies, etc. Now I drive a little farther to Imbert and Smithers. I go in there every coupleof weeks and Brad knocks 10% off retail for me without me asking.

Sorry about the soapbox, but this topic gets me pretty hot.

akspetsnaz
03-18-2007, 9:35 PM
2 pages of comments on a $6 gunlock?

:confused:

I think we all should spend our energy on the recent gas prices.....

Sam Hainn
03-18-2007, 9:43 PM
This is simply wrong.
Please envision dead horse [:eek: here].

Federal law in this case does not override state law. The letter of the Federal law, posted several times in this thread, quite clearly states that a safe is acceptable 'secure storage'.

The BATFE regulation, posted somewhere around here, does not contradict my statement, as it correctly refers to 'secure storage device as defined by 18 USC 921 (a) 34'.

I don't see how it's simply wrong? I have'nt seen where showing proof of owning a safe is acceptable. it seems buying a safe or lock at time of the sale is only acceptable. Looking over these posts its clear the federal law needs revision so there isn't confusion.

jessegpresley
03-19-2007, 12:00 PM
The feds sent a letter to all FFLs telling us that we can't let a handgun leave the store without it being in a locked container. Calif law states that all handguns must be in a locked container of some sort when transported. This even applies to repairs. we tell all customers that fill out a safe affidavit to bring in a locking container with a lock when they pick up their Handgun.

Some Handguns come with a lock but no way to lock the container. We will drill a hole in the box for the customer or ask them to bring a lockable box on pick up.

According to the CA DOJ website "The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle..."

Librarian
03-19-2007, 12:37 PM
I don't see how it's simply wrong? I have'nt seen where showing proof of owning a safe is acceptable. it seems buying a safe or lock at time of the sale is only acceptable. Looking over these posts its clear the federal law needs revision so there isn't confusion.

OK, let's do this the long way:‘‘(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE
.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL
.—Except as provided under paragraph
(2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than any person licensed
under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a
secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section
921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS
.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
[ snipped, not needed ]

Now, let's replace the reference to 921 (a) 34 with the text:
‘(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE
.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL
.—Except as provided under paragraph
(2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than any person licensed
under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with [one of]
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.

‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS
.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
[ snipped, not needed ]

The problem is that BATFE has not provided a regulation which acknowledges the plain language of the law regarding safes. If I were an FFL, I'd be hesitant to accept 'proof of safe' without BATFE guidance, but the law itself is entirely clear.

The term 'provided with' is being interpreted as 'sold at time of gun sale', which is far too narrow. I can provide a lock to myself, and I surely can provide a safe to myself, and I would ALSO then be 'provided with' a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.

Corbin Dallas
03-19-2007, 7:40 PM
Mr. Xxxxxxxxx-


Thank you for your thoughtful letter. While I do think we can update our website in some ways to reflect the impact of the CSLA on both dealers and consumers, I do think it is important to clarify some things. I’ll outline these in a fashion that parallels the outline of your e-mail.


1) We can update #6 on our gun buying FAQ. But in doing so, we need to stress the fact that dealers are required to enforce CA law and Federal law at once. Neither piece of legislation nor their respective regulations clearly nor cleanly pre-empt each other and neither dealers nor consumers can “ala-carte” the bits and pieces we each prefer.

2) We can revisit our employee training with regards to what CA law allows and/or requires dealers and consumers to provide to each other with regards to CA’s FSD regulations. But be mindful that these requirements are not mutually exclusive of the CSLA nor vice versa and this is where I trust your frustration lies, as does ours. For example-

a. CA dealers may not sell any FSD (lock, cable, etc.) that is not “CA-approved”. So if a gun comes with an approved lock, the requirements of the FED and CA laws are met. But if the gun comes with a “non-CA-approved” lock, we must require that a CA lock is purchased or provided (if accompanied by a receipt dated within the prior 30 days), even if the CSLA would allow the use of said “non-CA-approved” lock.

b. Likewise while CA law allows that one can provide a safe affidavit, the CSLA seems to definitely preclude the use of an affidavit. However there is no indication that OEM devices that are CA approved will be included in the CSLA regulations, either.

c. I do agree with you and with only minor qualification that we could accept a CA-approved device from you (with a receipt dated within 30 days) to meet the CSLA and the CA requirement. From the CSLA perspective you could provide the device, but we would have to meet the CA requirements concurrently- the device would have to be CA approved and you would have to provide the 30-day receipt.)


Please understand that we have had to perform this balancing act- maintaining customer service while perched on the edge of three sharpened swords- local ordinances (such as we have in San Diego or Los Angeles), and state and Federal laws- for years. Anytime we lean towards common sense or convenience on behalf of our customers, we get poked by one of these sharp edges.


Yes, we do make a buck or two on a $6 lock, but we aren’t counting on those dollars for tomorrow’s sales gains. Instead we only trouble with this mess because we are forced to.


Yet we do value our repeat customers for tomorrow’s business and we appreciate your feedback such that we will update our website and keep putting money and effort into fighting the type of legislation that often times puts consumers at odds with dealers.


Thank you once again for taking your valuable time to offer us some input on how to serve you better.

Bill Ortiz

Director, Store Operations


1) They are enforcing both laws at the same time? How can you do that? They contradict eachother. Since when is Turners DOJ and BAFTE at the same time.

2a) But they can sell you a "SAFE" which would satisify both requirements at the same time as the sales manager said.


UGH, why is it only Turners I'm having the problem with. Not even Discount guns gives me this much crap...

I. M. Nobody
03-20-2007, 6:31 PM
According to the CA DOJ website "The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle..."

Yes the trunk is a locked container. But how will you secure the weapon when you transport it from the dealers store to your trunk ? or when you arrive at the range and walk over to the firing line.

ivanimal
03-20-2007, 8:49 PM
I simply refuse to do business with anyone that will not accept a safe afidavit.

Trader Jack
03-20-2007, 9:10 PM
2 pages of comments on a $6 gunlock?

:confused:

I think we all should spend our energy on the recent gas prices.....

This is the best remark on this whole idiotic thread.
Frankly I doubt that Turners will blow a fart over this .:)

Maddog5150
03-21-2007, 7:17 PM
You know alot fo people are complaining about the federal law and wanting to use safe affidavits but do you people really want the federal goverment OKing safe affidavits?
Think about it. By opening the can, it turns out to be worms and get the ball rolling. The federal goverment will eventually REQUIRE a safe then and maybe even have you register a safe (should hitlery or one like her gets into office) then maybe be like Canadia or Australia where your firearms HAVE to be locked.

mu9en
03-22-2007, 7:36 AM
\

Send one to Don Small, the company CEO & Owner. I have emailed him before and he'll get email back.

When I buy guns that come with locks, they don't charge for a lock, but if I buy consignments or guns without locks, I have to buy one. It's a bummer, but if you're really unhappy about it, take the lock back on your next visit for a refund. I'm building a very nice gun lock collection. Yellow, blue, black, they come in neat colors...forget gun collecting, the real fun is the locks! (joking):)

i know the feeling! i have the same collection!!:D :) :confused:

califcowboy
03-22-2007, 8:07 AM
I give Turner's as little business as possible nowadays. I won't do transfers there anymore because of their self imposed or interpreted policies. Other FFL transfer dealers don't make you buy a gun lock or make the seller give a thumbprint.

Rob454
03-22-2007, 8:10 PM
hey if you guys hate Turners as much as i do why dont you jsut boycott. I simply DO NOT SHOP THERE. I go in with my buddies look at their overpriced accessories and lisen to them tell my buddy a bunch of BS.
For example
Bddy went in to get a shotgun. They adveritsed a semi auto turkish shotgun ( copy of Beretta semi auto) for 250$.
buddy- hey i wanna see one of those 250$ semi auto shotguns from the ad,.
turners guy - you dont want one of those
Buddy- why not its a good price
Turners guy- they really are bad
Buddy- well what else do you suggest
Turners guy turns and comes back with - well we have this
Me looking at the price tag 1400$
I ask whats so bad about the other gun
Turners guy- theire jsut bad
Me then why are you selling them
Me again turn around and start walking away
I ended up talking my buddy into a Mossberg silver reserve and we got them for 360$ each
Rob

Corbin Dallas
03-22-2007, 8:54 PM
So all being said and done that will be my last sale with Turners period.

No guns, no ammo, no reloading supplies, NOTHING.

You guys are right, if you want to make a difference, make it with your wallet. That seems to be all they understand.

Turners, if you're reading. You got $600 from me, but that's all your ever getting anymore.

No more 12ga #7 or #8 shells.
No more federal & winchester small pistol primers
No more 40cal or 9mm bullets
Nothing... Not even targets

I don't care if WalMart is out of business, I'll buy them from the range. You lost $1000's of dollars in potential sales...

Because of a $6 lock? Nope, because you decided that it was more important to make the sale than it was to inform me about all fees first. I believe that is known as mis-representing.

Enjoy the profit you got, it's your last.

jessegpresley
03-23-2007, 12:57 AM
Yes the trunk is a locked container. But how will you secure the weapon when you transport it from the dealers store to your trunk ? or when you arrive at the range and walk over to the firing line.

I'm not aware of this having to be done. Could you post a url to where this law is stated?

neomentat
03-23-2007, 8:17 AM
i have only one thing to say about turners: fook turners

AJD
03-23-2007, 4:51 PM
I just did a PPT on a Beretta Tomcat Inox, which came with a cable lock already, and Turner's made me buy another one. The guy said it is required for PPT even though it already came with a cable lock, or if you have a safe. This was in the Pasadena Turners.

Is this BS?

If the lock that came with the Beretta was not on the CA approved list, then yes, you do have to buy another lock. You can check the Doj's website if you know the model # of the lock that came with the gun. I believe they have all of the approved locks somewhere on there.

L-2
03-23-2007, 10:49 PM
I'm not aware of this having to be done. Could you post a url to where this law is stated?

ref. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7186465797+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Calif. Penal Code excerpt referring to concealable firearms:
12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or
Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from
transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the
following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

Corbin Dallas
03-24-2007, 8:36 AM
I think #1 was the one about the trunk specifically....

(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.

mscales5
03-24-2007, 10:23 AM
I will start off by saying I have not read all the preceding post but I hav a quit a few of them. If this has been covered then I am sorry.

Ok, here goes. There is a Federal law that REQUIRES all firearms are to be sold with a gun/trigger lock. In the past they would use the CA gun safe also. I had a DOJ inspection 2 weeks ago Friday and I was informed by the DOJ inspector that they hav been told by the ATF that they are no longer allowing the gun safe to act as a "lock". A few years ago when the FEDs wanted to pass a law reguiring all guns sold to be delivered with a trigger lock the industry as a whole agreed to provide locks with the guns they sold if the government would NOT pass that law. Well, a couple years later that did become law and now it looks like the ATF is enforcing it. As we all know, a gun safe is NOT a gun/trigger lock so the safe does not meet the requirements. In CA we now have a problem becasue we can not sell or even have or give a non CA approved lock to a customer, we have to dispose of them. Do not get mad at any dealer that requires you to buy a gun lock that has not been provided by the manufacturer, it is not your FFL license that could be on the line. Does it suck? Yes it does but we as FFL dealers have no choice and I would rather error on the side of my license. If anyone has a question about this law then call your local ATF office and ask them directly instead of complaining to the FFl holder that is trying to comply and protect his license.

Librarian
03-24-2007, 6:19 PM
I will start off by saying I have not read all the preceding post but I hav a quit a few of them. If this has been covered then I am sorry.

Ok, here goes. There is a Federal law that REQUIRES all firearms are to be sold with a gun/trigger lock. In the past they would use the CA gun safe also. I had a DOJ inspection 2 weeks ago Friday and I was informed by the DOJ inspector that they hav been told by the ATF that they are no longer allowing the gun safe to act as a "lock". A few years ago when the FEDs wanted to pass a law reguiring all guns sold to be delivered with a trigger lock the industry as a whole agreed to provide locks with the guns they sold if the government would NOT pass that law. Well, a couple years later that did become law and now it looks like the ATF is enforcing it. As we all know, a gun safe is NOT a gun/trigger lock so the safe does not meet the requirements. In CA we now have a problem becasue we can not sell or even have or give a non CA approved lock to a customer, we have to dispose of them. Do not get mad at any dealer that requires you to buy a gun lock that has not been provided by the manufacturer, it is not your FFL license that could be on the line. Does it suck? Yes it does but we as FFL dealers have no choice and I would rather error on the side of my license. If anyone has a question about this law then call your local ATF office and ask them directly instead of complaining to the FFl holder that is trying to comply and protect his license.

Sorry. The ATF is lying to DOJ. See my post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=541494&postcount=53) in this thread of 3/19 at 1:37 PM. The law does NOT require what the ATF told DOJ or what DOJ told you. A safe is defined in law as a secure storage device which meets the requirements of 18 USC 922(z)(1).

That doesn't mean you, as an FFL holder, have a lot of choice in the matter.

mscales5
03-25-2007, 10:24 AM
Sorry. The ATF is lying to DOJ. See my post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=541494&postcount=53) in this thread of 3/19 at 1:37 PM. The law does NOT require what the ATF told DOJ or what DOJ told you. A safe is defined in law as a secure storage device which meets the requirements of 18 USC 922(z)(1).

That doesn't mean you, as an FFL holder, have a lot of choice in the matter.

I didn't say they were or they weren't. What I said was the ATF has told the DOJ that trigger/gun locks are going to be required to meet federal law. The DOJ guy said it was up to me to decide what I wanted to do bu tthat he was warning me. Now, if Turners had been told by ATF or even the DOJ mentioned this, it is the FFL holders decision to comply anyway he wants to protect his FFL. IF that means requiring customers to have a gun lock with each purchase then that is how it is. You can cut and paste all the code you want but what it comes down to is we FFLs have to do what we are toldto protect our FFLs. For now I am following the CA law for lock/gun safe but I do have a call into the ATF. On another note, I was inspected by ATF a few years ago and all was OK but I was told to I could do something one way. On the next inspection the new ATF inspector looked at it and siad the complete opposite. Since what I did was still OK it was NOT what that one inspector liked to or was use to seeing. I do know one thing about ATF from personal kowledge since my brother-in-law retired from the ATF after 33 years, is they do not all know all the rules. None of them. They do or look for what they are told to do or look for.

Librarian
03-25-2007, 2:24 PM
I didn't say they were or they weren't. What I said was the ATF has told the DOJ that trigger/gun locks are going to be required to meet federal law. The DOJ guy said it was up to me to decide what I wanted to do bu tthat he was warning me. Now, if Turners had been told by ATF or even the DOJ mentioned this, it is the FFL holders decision to comply anyway he wants to protect his FFL. IF that means requiring customers to have a gun lock with each purchase then that is how it is. You can cut and paste all the code you want but what it comes down to is we FFLs have to do what we are toldto protect our FFLs. For now I am following the CA law for lock/gun safe but I do have a call into the ATF. On another note, I was inspected by ATF a few years ago and all was OK but I was told to I could do something one way. On the next inspection the new ATF inspector looked at it and siad the complete opposite. Since what I did was still OK it was NOT what that one inspector liked to or was use to seeing. I do know one thing about ATF from personal kowledge since my brother-in-law retired from the ATF after 33 years, is they do not all know all the rules. None of them. They do or look for what they are told to do or look for.

That's what I meant about not having a lot of choice in the matter - I think it's unwise to risk your license and livelihood over a gun lock, and I see FFLs are in a hard place with this.

When you get hold of ATF, please ask them when they will have a regulation for implementing 18 USC 922 (z) which includes all of 18 USC 921(a)(34); that will be the correct answer to this kerfuffle.