PDA

View Full Version : Meet in person at CA FFL Nevada seller Cali buyer off roster gun


jacko
02-18-2012, 1:45 PM
Tried a search, but no luck. Im the Cali private party buyer. Seller is Nevada private party. Off roster hand gun. Both of us meeting at a Cali FFL.

1) Is this legal?

2) Do I still have to wait 10 days to recieve the gun?

3) Does this apply to the 1 gun per 30 day rule?

4) do I have to pay for Cali sales tax?

TIA!

chillincody
02-18-2012, 1:54 PM
im not sure but ppt i always thought had to be cali residents way around this is to single shot exempt at a ca ffl
and it would have a 10 day wait

mej16489
02-18-2012, 2:27 PM
Not an FFL.

No, the CA FFL can only PPT between two CA residents.

However, since the Seller is an NV resident, it is possible for him to 'deliver' the firearm to a CA FFL for transfer to a CA resident. BUT, at this point its not considered a PPT, so you (the buyer) must be a roster exempt buyer or the handgun must be turned into a dimensionally compliant single shot (presuming its not a revolver)

Both 1 in 30 and 10 day wait would apply as the seller is not a CA resident.

jacko
02-18-2012, 2:53 PM
Got it. Thanks.

kemasa
02-18-2012, 3:41 PM
Tried a search, but no luck. Im the Cali private party buyer. Seller is Nevada private party. Off roster hand gun. Both of us meeting at a Cali FFL.

1) Is this legal?

2) Do I still have to wait 10 days to recieve the gun?

3) Does this apply to the 1 gun per 30 day rule?

4) do I have to pay for Cali sales tax?

TIA!

It is not a PPT since PPTs are between CA residents.

1) Yes, it is legal, but it can not be transferred to you unless you are exempt or the firearm is exempt. The PPT exemption of rostered firearm does not apply.

2) Yes, you have to wait 10 days unless you are exempt.

3) Yes, it applies to the 1 gun per month.

4) Hard to say. The BOE changed their view, but not the law. Since the person comes to CA, I would think that sales tax would not apply as the BOE bogus excuses would not apply. In 2009, they said that sales tax would not apply. In 2011, they say it does.

wildhawker
02-18-2012, 8:08 PM
It is not a PPT since PPTs are between CA residents.

On what do you base this?

Let's set aside institutional knowledge for the purpose of this exercise.

-Brandon

Mssr. Eleganté
02-19-2012, 12:44 AM
...Let's set aside institutional knowledge for the purpose of this exercise.

Yeah, pretend you don't know how the DROS computer works, just for the purpose of this exercise. :p

jacko
02-19-2012, 12:54 AM
Thanks Kemasa.

I read somewhere that a PPT only occurs when buyer and seller are from the same state and meet in person at the FFL.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-19-2012, 1:19 AM
What Wildhawker was hinting at is that there is no requirement in the California penal code that the selling party in a PPT be a California resident. But the DROS software requires a California DL or California ID from both parties in a PPT. This is an example of "underground regulation", a regulation that is not supported by law.

jacko
02-19-2012, 8:30 AM
Well that's f$ck@d up

kemasa
02-19-2012, 8:48 AM
Or military ID.

You need to both go to the same FFL, but it is not required to be at the same time.

Please also see CA PC 28060, which allows the AG to adopt regulations. This allows the AG to require a CA ID and is supported by the law since the law says that they can make the regulations. Now, you can go and contest this regulation, but that is up to the lawyers.

Wildhawker can try to cause problems by making claims that a PPT transfer does not have to be between CA residents, but this will hit a brick wall called the DROS system, so such statements are not helpful in the least as it will cause problems for FFLs and customers with the end result being the same. More useful would be to push the issue with high capacity magazines and the law which allows for an exemption for the sale to and from FFLs. Another area would be to push the issue with the CA BOE now claiming that a person selling a firearm out of state is like a drop shipment and sales tax has to be collected on it, even though this new "view" conflicts with a written statement from the BOE from 2009 and the law has not changed.

wildhawker
02-19-2012, 10:50 AM
What Wildhawker was hinting at is that there is no requirement in the California penal code that the selling party in a PPT be a California resident. But the DROS software requires a California DL or California ID from both parties in a PPT. This is an example of "underground regulation", a regulation that is not supported by law.

Indeed, and thank you for humoring me on this.

Or military ID.

You need to both go to the same FFL, but it is not required to be at the same time.

Please also see CA PC 28060, which allows the AG to adopt regulations. This allows the AG to require a CA ID and is supported by the law since the law says that they can make the regulations. Now, you can go and contest this regulation, but that is up to the lawyers.

And this, folks, is what it looks like when you don't understand how statutory constructions works.

Wildhawker can try to cause problems by making claims that a PPT transfer does not have to be between CA residents, but this will hit a brick wall called the DROS system, so such statements are not helpful in the least as it will cause problems for FFLs and customers with the end result being the same.

Translation: "I have no idea what a possible challenge might look like but I'm going to do some hand-waiving anyway."

More useful would be to push the issue with high capacity magazines and the law which allows for an exemption for the sale to and from FFLs. Another area would be to push the issue with the CA BOE now claiming that a person selling a firearm out of state is like a drop shipment and sales tax has to be collected on it, even though this new "view" conflicts with a written statement from the BOE from 2009 and the law has not changed.

Mags will be a non-issue. That's on the roadmap.

The BOE matter is going to take some time and money to fix; consider financially supporting that case if you think it's "more useful".

Ultimately, Dearth and Lane will provide the constitutional backdrop for a significant challenge to revamp DROS. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the very real underground regulations which exist today and damage the exercise of fundamental rights.

-Brandon

kemasa
02-19-2012, 1:13 PM
Wildhawker, why don't you wake up and realize what you are actually doing. Yes, you can do what you want to get things corrected, but when you post things which are going to cause problems you are not helping anyone.

The simple fact is that today you are not going to find a FFL who is going to do a PPT with an out of state resident. Your first post was an attempt to incite a reaction and not to educate people and therefore was not in the least bit helpful. Your defensive post above does not reflect well on you either.

If you want, please explain your thought process to your post and how anyone would think that it would answer the question, help the person to understand the reality in CA with respect to the CA PPT.

wildhawker
02-19-2012, 3:34 PM
It's my view that people have a right to know and, to the extent that asking questions facilitates it, understand the conditions that affect their fundamental rights.

What I am "actually doing" is asking you to support your argument that "[i]t is not a PPT since PPTs are between CA residents." I did so to illustrate that the system is flawed and needs to be fixed.

In law, a PPT has nothing to do with the residency of the parties. In fact, by operation of the DROS software, it does. Mssr. Eleganté provided a most excellent explanation of the issue and I thank him for that. If you don't agree with my tactics, as it seems you don't, feel free to not participate in my efforts to invest readers and posters in this issue.

Since you've asserted it twice now, while offering no explanation of what you mean, please tell me how my post(s) is/are "going to cause problems", and for whom.

Also, you mentioned two issues you think are valuable to address and avoided responding to my suggestion to support their resolution. I'm asking you again what you are going to do to help. When you're willing to fund the efforts to accomplish what you think is important please let me know.

-Brandon

kemasa
02-19-2012, 4:09 PM
You should define what you mean by PPT. You could say that it is just a transfer between private parties, but it has a different meaning in CA. As used in CA, it is only between CA residents since the DROS system and the view of the CA DOJ is that it is only between CA residents. It does not matter what you think it should be. Under Federal law, residents of different states have to go through a FFL.

Perhaps you should read what I said since I already explained how your posts are going to cause problems. It seems that you don't understand that. What you are actually doing vs. what you think you are actually doing is two different things. If you stated that the law is one thing and how it is actually done is another, then you might be doing what you claim you are doing, but when you instead just say that the law does not support that, leaving people to think that a PPT can be done between residents of different states, then you are doing something else.

What I am doing is really none of your business, but I am trying to do something, how about you? Why don't you use the money you are collecting from FFLs to work on fighting those issues. You might think that you are someone special, but based on what you have said and how you have said it, I don't. I am not just talking about this thread, but your comments show your attitude. Personally, I don't care how others might view you. It is quite an arrogant view to say that you have to have money in order to accomplish what you think is important, which is also saying that if I don't or can't put out money, then I am not doing anything. How much of you own money are you putting out? How much of others monye are you putting out?